Today, we'll be adding most of the changes we’ve been discussing to balance testing. Please check out the changes and let’s get more discussions going where needed.
We would also like to thank everyone for the great discussions regarding what to do with the Cyclone. This was one of those few times where there wasn’t a clear consensus to whether we should keep the Cyclone or revert it, but we agreed with the slight majority of players in that the current version is probably the more helpful option towards pushing Mech play.
Factory AA
One other thing we wanted to discuss regarding the Cyclone AA feedback was Mech AA. As some of you have also pointed out, the Thor is much more of a core option against air in testing. Not only did the Thor receive a buff vs. light air units, but also the armored air units that used to outrange the Thor now have equal or lower range as the Thor.
The main reason why we would like to push the Thor more so than the Cyclone as the core AA option is very simple: We believe the core Mech end game composition should consist of very powerful but less mobile units such as the Thor, Siege Tanks, BCs, etc. This is because the high mobility gameplay option is already provided well through Bio. For example, when being harassed by Mutalisks, I can stim pack and quickly chase them off. Using fast-moving cyclones to deal with them would feel very similar. In contrast, Thors battle Mutalisks in a different way: they need to be in position to really get strong damage against Mutalisks trying to fly in, which is more fitting for the Mech fantasy.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t increase the current effectiveness of the new Cyclone’s AA capabilities as long as it isn’t the main AA option throughout the whole game. We feel that there could be room here to increase its effectiveness, and we’ll start testing out some numbers as per your suggestion. Next balance changes Aside from the potential Cyclone AA damage changes, we would like to take a pass at Ultralisk armor and really focus on tuning of the new Tempest ability. With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit + a nerf to the overall unit after upgrades.
For the Tempest, we would like to ask you guys to help us out on testing this ability against heavy Siege Tank based compositions and Hydra/Lurker based armies.
KR feedback regarding SC2’s main goal
We’ve been seeing a lot of discussion from the KR community on two points: making the game easier, and toning down harassment so that the general pace of the game is slower.
We agree heavily with many players in our global community that SC2 is one of very few games where you are solely responsible for whether you win, or lose, and that these results are tied to the time, dedication, and skill which players put into mastering the game. The feeling of practicing and mastering a part of the game, and directly seeing my personal increase in skill, is truly unlike any other game in the world.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
In regards to harassment, we agree that some cases feel like it’s too much right now. We feel that we’ve taken a pass at the units that seem to have pushed this too much, such as: Adepts, Warp Prisms, and Tankivacs. Also, we’ve taken measures to strengthen defensive units such as Hydralisks (fending off early game harassment attacks) or the defensive based Mech play in general. We’re not saying we’ll hit this feedback perfectly from the start, and that’s why we would really love to encourage you guys to talk about specific changes that are needed rather than talking too much in general. For example, if the Adept specifically needs to be nerfed more in a specific way, of course now is the best time to try out that specific nerf.
Please remember that this is a group effort, and we’re all trying to make the game better by working together. Thanks as always and let’s continue working at it even though we know this isn’t easy!
Poll: What do you think of the Ultralisk armor change?
Good! (234)
76%
Bad! (58)
19%
Neutral. (16)
5%
308 total votes
Your vote: What do you think of the Ultralisk armor change?
"Today, we'll be adding most of the changes we’ve been discussing to balance testing. Please check out the changes and let’s get more discussions going where needed."
What changes is he talking about? Tempest new ability?
Personally I love this update, the Ultralisk change is great, the Tempest ability sounds exciting and buffing Cyclone AA a little bit, without it being the main AA for mech, also sounds very good!
So sick that Blizzard would rather keep the spiriti of sc2 instead of making it easier just to sell more copies. I hope sc2 1v1 stays hardcore, while they also expand the other modes like arcade and co-op to attract the more casual audience.
This is one of the better updates so far! I really agree with the direction of these changes.
Ultralisk change may be too small though Marauder attack nerf.It will still take an insane amount of time to kill a few Ultralisks with bio even with this change.
On October 22 2016 04:14 MockHamill wrote: This is one of the better updates so far! I really agree with the direction of these changes.
Ultralisk change may be too small though Marauder attack nerf.It will still take an insane amount of time to kill a few Ultralisks with bio even with this change.
Don't just think of marauders, it still doubles the damage of Marines vs Ultras, it's a big change. If you decrease it further it's at HotS level and Marines will destroy Ultras again.
Agree with the overarching philosophies. I think the Ultralisk should remain a power house and Cyclone doesn't necessarily need better anti air though.
On October 22 2016 04:15 Bareleon wrote: I wonder if Dayvie doesn't wanna test the Stalker buff yet cause he knows people wont test anything else and just try to cheese every game lol.
Can we also talk about re-designing the Corruptor as well? I feel like it is currently one of the worst designed units in the game at the moment, aside from Swarm Host.
Finally we're getting somewhere. Please don't let the next update just say "we thought about going that direction, instead we're going to keep things exactly the same." THAT'S what's been so disappointing in the past. Based on poll numbers, the VAST number of us LIKE the direction this is headed so please, continue!
If Blizzard doesn't address X unit, they are stupid and ignoring the glaring problems.
Great Blizzard addressed X unit, but they forgot to address Y unit so they are still stupid and ignoring something.
Holy fuck all people, let them focus on a few units at the time. I feel like some people want Blizzard to write an indepth manifesto on every unit and buffs/changes for every single feedback update.
I get it, some units are glaringly unbalanced, and Blizzard needs to fix them, but just because they haven't mentioned it in the update, doesn't mean it isn't being looked at.
edit: Don't get me wrong, its ok to ask them about a specific unit, but don't shit on them if they haven't mentioned it.
So they clarified their stance on what they think mech should be. People complained that the Thor was slow and clunky, but it seems that fits their idea of mech. We definitely won't be getting the Goliath back, but I hope they go through with buffing the Cyclone to almost be something similar.
Disregarding the contents of these updates, I think it's awesome to see this level of communication from the developer of the game. As a TF2 aficionado, I can't help but compare this with how Valve treats that community. Just today I read patch notes where they're removing two of the five most popular maps from the matchmaking map pool, with no explanation at all.
SC2 fans should be happy with Blizzard's communication levels
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle.
I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead.
Adepts? Tankivacs?
If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones.
Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment.
On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote: yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
First off, the Starcraft division is doing a substantially better job of communicating then they probably ever have be it on TL, B.net or even Twitter and Facebook, good job on that.
Very relieved to hear them start to address the overarching problem of LOTV in that harassment is far too strong and it's turning SC2 into a, "If your not Zerg your entire game is spent attacking a mineral line or if you are Zerg your defending a mineral line" scenario instead of small action packed skirmishes across the map, biggest problem being theres a ton of things that incinerate workers in the blink of an eye and...well...workers just don't fight back, so there is little to no "skirmish" feel going on. That was a big failure on the design of LOTV and it's awesome to hear the team acknowledge it.
I still feel like my thoughts for the Oracle would translate into a vastly less punishing but still powerful utility Stargate unit
- Make Pulsar Beam function like a normal attack, not an energy channeled ability, make it markedly less effective vs. light units and more effective in general. Kind of like how Banshees can get a good number of worker kills but not end the game outright, and yet they still pump out respectable DPS to general units, not just workers.
- Increase range of Pulsar Beam by 1 (Or even 2 whatever is necessary) this will allow the Oracle to micro and find sweet spots in enemy AA which almost hard counters the Oracle through the mid game at least and it's a bad dynamic in my opinion (Where if you have a spore crawler and a Queen the Oracle get's almost no worker kills and is kind of bad but if you have a poor read and no spore crawler the Oracle will essentially end the game)
- Redesign Revelation to function more like Parasite from BW (permanent vision from a singular unit)
- Redesign Stasis Ward to cost less mana, but have a smaller radius and only slow, not root. Tldr make it more spammable but weaker
- Oracle now detects right out of the box
More on topic, I was merely offering a thought on the whole, "game ending harassment" subject with that..
New Cylcone mild AA buff is the right move, factory should have powerful units right out of the gates that don't rely on upgrades or gimmicks, they are just strong units. On that same hand, there is no reason to make mech overpowered just to make it viable but it does have to be strong to flush out anything that's OP/other races to learn to counter mech styles that might FEEL overpowered until the pro players figure it out. If mech doesnt feel strong to play, people will never play it, and then mech can never be tuned down with future balance patches resulting in a viable mech and viable bio play style.
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle.
I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead.
Adepts? Tankivacs?
If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones.
Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment.
On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote: yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect
Preach it.
I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol. Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close.
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle.
I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead.
Adepts? Tankivacs?
If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones.
Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment.
On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote: yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect
Preach it.
I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol. Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close.
But he does make a good point in a general sense. Units that out right end the game because of a singular mis micro or lack of attention aren't good for the game. Oracles definitely being one of them, Adepts of course are just OP.
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle.
I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead.
Adepts? Tankivacs?
If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones.
Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment.
On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote: yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect
Preach it.
I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol. Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close.
But he does make a good point in a general sense. Units that out right end the game because of a singular mis micro or lack of attention aren't good for the game. Oracles definitely being one of them, Adepts of course are just OP.
agree o_o the first reason why I don't play SC2 or second, first is bally pathing probably
On October 22 2016 06:15 Haighstrom wrote: What Ultra armour change? I looked up the latest balance changes (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749797803) and nothing about the Ultra?
These changes from today are going to be put into testing next week on Tuesday.
On October 22 2016 04:21 xTJx wrote: Broodlords are the only units that can push mass tanks and already getting hard countered by thors, now they wanna buff cyclone AA?
I know you wanna kill your own game by making it as boring as possible, but you really wanna fix ZvT bio to break ZvT mech?
On October 22 2016 06:15 Haighstrom wrote: What Ultra armour change? I looked up the latest balance changes (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749797803) and nothing about the Ultra?
I bolded the part where they talk about the ultra change, they only mentioned it in today's update.
On October 22 2016 05:41 Darkdwarf wrote: Disregarding the contents of these updates, I think it's awesome to see this level of communication from the developer of the game. As a TF2 aficionado, I can't help but compare this with how Valve treats that community. Just today I read patch notes where they're removing two of the five most popular maps from the matchmaking map pool, with no explanation at all.
SC2 fans should be happy with Blizzard's communication levels
I would be, if the updates weren't filled with so much full & PR, and if they weren't so one-sided. Blizzard tends to hear what they want to hear, and often times take advice from a minority if it aligns with their direction (and claim it's because "user feedback), or other times when there's overwhelming support of a specific direction they will go the opposite way (and claim it's, again, because "user feedback"). There's no consistency, which makes it pretty discouraging to even attempt to give feedback.
An example of fluff in this post, they say they are going to address "making the game easier" discussions, but don't really discuss it much, instead talking about how skill-based the game is, and throwing some PR about "making SC the best game of it's type that it can be"....
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
They only discuss skill ceiling, but none of the rest. Skill ceiling needs to be high, but fun factor needs to be a focus at all levels of play, skill floor needs to be reasonably attainable, and games can not survive trickling out old players and not receiving any new players...
This is besides the fact that there's many instances of the games skill ceiling & competitive aspect they are praising being harmed by their design. Their philosophy on scouting ever since SC2 started makes skill less important, and results in the better playing losing often. The focus on spreading yourself thin on APM spam, rather than increasing the APM inside aspects of the gameplay that involve strategic decision making, makes skill less important. Their philosophy would work if you had a number of strategic decisions that are all important but you had to choose which one, but if your choice is to either macro or micro, that's not quite as rewarding as it should be.
All these developers that have been trying to "create games as an eSport", have only caused harm to their games. They can talk about being skill based all they want, but after all that intentional work to try to make SC2 more "skill based", I still believe BW is the far more skill based game, and it wasn't even designed with the intent of eSports.
Other developers fell in to the same trap. GW2 tried to create an eSport out of their PvP - but it failed miserably and GW1 had more eSport success than GW2 ever had. CoD tried to become more of an eSport, and that's where the quality of the series began to decline. Most new MOBA's try to go the eSport direction, and fall in with the masses.
The thing about all the top competitive games, is their primary focus was to create a "great game" - that included not only a high skill cap, but all the other design aspects I mentioned earlier. eSport should be an afterthought, not the primary intent of game design. Because games won't succeed as an eSport without being FUN first.
The only game that was created as an eSport as of recent that actually succeeded has been Overwatch, and that can be attributed to the fact that they offered an extremely long testing phase that focused on making the game fun, rather than competitive. The competitive features were added and iterated upon after release - which is how it should be. They created a fun game, welcoming for new players, with a high skill cap, with a lot of variety, and designed a world around it that allows them to create media outside the game to appeal to new players, & combined with being welcoming to new players, ensure rapid growth for the game moving in to the future.
That's the blueprint for succeeding at what their trying to do. They have the blueprint at the company but they are not even applying it to SC2! Their handling of SC2... That's not following their successful blueprint. It's only going to weaken the StarCraft brand even further.
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking.
The Korean feedback about toning down harassment sounds like a great idea. If I recall correctly, that idea has been suggested several times. As it is now, games can just end because of a couple of seconds of inattention. The game is better when skirmishes, unit positioning, adapting compositions to the foe's are the main part of the game instead of 2 oracles killing everything in the mineral line, or 3 mines that got their payload off. I have seen several people present a suggestion of lower damage oracles vs light, but with increased range. In this thread the suggestion involved increasing damage vs non-light units and making the pulsar beam a permanent weapon instead of an energy weapon.
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
I don't think Blizzard is putting those two statements on opposite sides of a scale. All they said was that they don't want to make sacrifices on skill difficulty just to achieve the goal of increasing player base.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
And they also don't think they are in that place. I think Blizzard believes that maintaining difficulty will not significantly decrease the number of players.
I feel like you are in the camp of "I want SC2 to be a different game", but unfortunately that ship has sailed a long time ago. They have already made up their mind on what they want SC2 to be, and your post is about making SC2 into something you want.
Just like JJR has said before, SC2 is a difficult game. If you can't deal with it, play a different one. Blizzard won't change it now.
very cool update i would say i like new kind of games on testing modes bcs are rly good the only thing i dislike is thatin pvt u mostly encounter tempest + mothership rush but overall its rly cool tough i would still say buff some toss infantry and hydra AND BRING CARRIER 50HP BACK after takeing it at start of lotv for no reason.Yeah mech need some more early anti air ...
On October 22 2016 06:47 Spyridon wrote: But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
...
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking.
This exactly.
Koreans (and others) communicate that the game is too hard and too fast all the time ... yet the feedback is always "we think we're making the game better!".
Making the game accessible, intuitive, appealing ... and most importantly enjoyable at all levels has been put by the way-side.
Fun games get played.
Difficulty isn't really the problem ... it's the difficulty without any fun, it's the speed without any fun, it's the demanding mechanics without any fun. BW is much more popular in Korea than SC2 ... because people enjoy playing it.
The most important change that could happen for SC2 would be a focus upon making the game fun at all levels. This will force the focus on intuitiveness, appeal, accessibility (skill floor).
The skill ceiling right now is probably too low! But no one cares because they're not having fun!
Make the game fun, then worry about look and see if your players are clustered at the top with no room to improve.
On October 22 2016 06:47 Spyridon wrote: But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
...
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking.
This exactly.
Koreans (and others) communicate that the game is too hard and too fast all the time ... yet the feedback is always "we think we're making the game better!".
Making the game accessible, intuitive, appealing ... and most importantly enjoyable at all levels has been put by the way-side.
Fun games get played.
Difficulty isn't really the problem ... it's the difficulty without any fun, it's the speed without any fun, it's the demanding mechanics without any fun. BW is much more popular in Korea than SC2 ... because people enjoy playing it.
The most important change that could happen for SC2 would be a focus upon making the game fun at all levels. This will force the focus on intuitiveness, appeal, accessibility (skill floor).
The skill ceiling right now is probably too low! But no one cares because they're not having fun!
Make the game fun, then worry about look and see if your players are clustered at the top with no room to improve.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
no people don't care how a game is classified they care about what you do in them. nowadays few gamers enjoy a stressful 1vs1 multiplayer game where you can only blame yourself when you lose. they prefer games where you only have to control a single unit and play in a team with 4 other people.
On October 22 2016 04:10 Charoisaur wrote: agree with everything DK said. great changes.
but... Burrowed infestors... does he really want to keep them in the game?
with how crap neural parasite is and how rarely infestors are used at all, burrowed spell casting is just what that unit needs. Also, they have a hurtbox while burrowed meaning units can't just walk over them which can actually be bothersome considering they are slower and you need your army to maneuver around them.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
I think its a matter of selection. We have so many more games to watch and play, that SC2 is losing market share in the gaming industry.
That doesn't mean its losing interest. I think a lot of people are still interested in the game, but they choose not to play/watch other games because we have greater selection.
On October 22 2016 04:10 Charoisaur wrote: agree with everything DK said. great changes.
but... Burrowed infestors... does he really want to keep them in the game?
with how crap neural parasite is and how rarely infestors are used at all, burrowed spell casting is just what that unit needs. Also, they have a hurtbox while burrowed meaning units can't just walk over them which can actually be bothersome considering they are slower and you need your army to maneuver around them.
Infestors are already very common in zvt with roach ravager compositions or to fungal ghosts in lategame. You realize terran doesn't have reliable detection except ravens? burrowed infestors would mean terran would need either a raven every time they move out or scan every 10 seconds which is certainly not affordable.
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
I don't think Blizzard is putting those two statements on opposite sides of a scale. All they said was that they don't want to make sacrifices on skill difficulty just to achieve the goal of increasing player base.
Regarding first response, I view i as putting them on opposite sides of the scale, because it's presented as if they are different directions from the intended topic (which is to address the "making the game easier" complaints).
I mean, they straight up said "Our goals is to create best of it's type, not necessarily selling". In that response in the context they gave it, their basically saying "Our goals to make SC2 the best game of the highly skill-based type, not to increase the player base by making the game easier".
The point I'm trying to make based upon that, is that the variable in question here is the "skill cap/ceiling" of the game. So what their really saying is "Our goal is to create the best game we can with a high skill ceiling, not to increase the player base by lowering the skill floor".
Now, does that make any sense? Does it really address the question was being asked?
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
And they also don't think they are in that place. I think Blizzard believes that maintaining difficulty will not significantly decrease the number of players.
I feel like you are in the camp of "I want SC2 to be a different game", but unfortunately that ship has sailed a long time ago. They have already made up their mind on what they want SC2 to be, and your post is about making SC2 into something you want.
Just like JJR has said before, SC2 is a difficult game. If you can't deal with it, play a different one. Blizzard won't change it now.
First off, don't get the wrong impression, I'm not even asking them to make the game "easier". The majority of games I play are highly competitive and thought of as "hard". I've been heavily in to fighting games for 25 years, which are one of the harder games to play out there (in some ways harder than RTS), I've been playing RTS since Warcraft 1, been playing StarCraft since the day part 1 was released. Love the souls series. I love "difficult" games.
My problem with SC2 isn't that it's "hard" - that's it's appeal. You say "they have already made up their mind on what they want it to be, and I want to make it in to what I want" - but on paper everything they claim they want SC2 to be is great. The problem is that they are doing a poor job of achieving the goals they claim they are working towards, and they have absolutely no factor of "fun" in their design. Check my last post and you have many examples. It can still be argued that BW is not only more skill based, but has a better skill balance than SC2. Their design choices are pulling them further from their intended goal, so they use PR and misdirection.
But more importantly, it's just not fun. Especially when compared to StarCraft and Brood War. Hell, even when compared to WoL. Over time the game has become LESS StarCraft, less fun, less strategic even, and more mechanics. The genre I signed up for was strategic and competitive, and what SC2 has turned in to is a mechanical game with less strategic decisions and meaningful competitive interaction.
And I have been playing different games. After their direction during HotS got worse and worse, I stopped playing. Then LotV came along, and I was very pleased with their direction. They then said they were happy with the direction and that they were going to stick with it. Which is when I pre-ordered LotV. Then they rushed the game and left it with half the beta length they said it was going to have, on top of pushing up the release date by 5 months, did a complete switch on direction (after not only saying they were going to stick with it, but writing up articles about how the Koreans agreed with the direction) and then did a rushed patch less than a month before release, that had less than 2 weeks of testing, leaving the economy, scaling, harassment, and unit balance in a horrible state.
I've stopped playing awhile ago, so you might ask why do I still follow the game? Because Blizzard has stated they will continue reassessing things. You say "Blizzard won't change it now"? Yet Blizzard said otherwise - and that's why they are doing bigger changes on the test map. Only thing is, they aren't going as far as they said they would in past community updates.
Which makes it all the more frustrating to read about how people are pleased with their level of communication... when if you have been following their updates as long as I have, you will see how full of fluff, misdirection, PR, and dishonesty these updates are filled with.
They aren't (and haven't) been doing what they said they would do, they aren't achieving their goals they claim, they are not paying attention to the declining state of the game, and posts like this go to show that they literally do not see how important of an issue the declining player base is.
People come up with excuses as to why RTS aren't thriving anymore, and use that as a reason for declining player base, but RTS's aren't even the same type of game anymore. You can not play SC1 and then SC2 past the lower leagues and say they are the same style of game.
And you mention JJR's statements. Well let's use his most common statement on the forums here - how "Blizzard isn't going to invest any more in to SC2 because there is no interest". Now let's look at their statements in this topic.... On one hand, they don't align at all. JJR says it's all about money, Blizzard says sales are not the goal. On the other hand, he implies that more sales would improve SC2 more, but Blizzard does not indicate any correlation between improvement and sales at all (and actually implies the opposite).
So... is JJR completely off track...? Shouldn't be quoting him then. Or is Blizzard off track...? No one should be supporting this then.
In the end, it's pretty obvious that a larger player base would help SC2, and that the declining player base is not only ruining the game itself, but also the competitive scene. It's pretty obvious that the majority of players who have played both games prefers SC1. It's pretty obvious that SC2 isn't really even "fun" for many gamers. And it's pretty obvious that any game needs growth rather than decline to succeed.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
Regarding average players who play the game and are not completely new, can you even say SC and SC2 should be considered the same style of game? Sure, they are in a similar genre if you look at controls only... but they play absolutely nothing alike. Some friends of mine will still play BW, but hate SC2 with a passion, and will not even log in. For years we have played BW as a party game, and even them being super casual and not playing in years, they will enjoy it. The same does NOT happen in SC2.
And I say again... they say SC2 went in this direction to become the most "skill based" it can be.... but to this day BW still is the more skill based game...
How can anyone defend that? Or even claim that they have achieved any of the goals they outline in the community updates? When that was their #1 goal ever since development, and they still have not achieved it.
Also note, during LotV's development, they stated they want the game to be more welcoming to new players, but harder for pros. This aligns with what I described earlier for a successful game. But what happened when they decided to rush the game out the door 5 months earlier than the Blizzard Store release date, and with a beta half as long as they promised? They didn't have time to make it welcoming to new players, so they completely throw that idea out the window. Hence, SC2 still suffering to this day from that decision (and likely for the rest of the games lifetime).
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
no people don't care how a game is classified they care about what you do in them. nowadays few gamers enjoy a stressful 1vs1 multiplayer game where you can only blame yourself when you lose. they prefer games where you only have to control a single unit and play in a team with 4 other people.
Again, this doesn't make sense to me. People played SC2. They stopped playing. They had some interest in a game that is difficult.
I have never, personally, heard of someone who played the game from WoL through HotS quit because it was too hard ... I hear lots of people quit because it's just not fun.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
I think its a matter of selection. We have so many more games to watch and play, that SC2 is losing market share in the gaming industry.
That doesn't mean its losing interest. I think a lot of people are still interested in the game, but they choose not to play/watch other games because we have greater selection.
I can't believe this either.
I make time for things that are good. I play lots of games, and watch lots of games. ONLY SC2 is on the chopping block for me. I don't enjoy playing it any more. I don't even enjoy watching it any more. It's not that other games are "more fun" it's that SC2 simply isn't.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
uhmm... pro players switched to BW because they can make more money from it. streams get more viewers because BW was a national sport in korea (the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw). SC2 didn't became a national sport in korea for several reasons which have nothing to do with the fun factor of the game. pretty obvious if you ask me.
On October 22 2016 04:10 Charoisaur wrote: agree with everything DK said. great changes.
but... Burrowed infestors... does he really want to keep them in the game?
with how crap neural parasite is and how rarely infestors are used at all, burrowed spell casting is just what that unit needs. Also, they have a hurtbox while burrowed meaning units can't just walk over them which can actually be bothersome considering they are slower and you need your army to maneuver around them.
Infestors are already very common in zvt with roach ravager compositions or to fungal ghosts in lategame. You realize terran doesn't have reliable detection except ravens? burrowed infestors would mean terran would need either a raven every time they move out or scan every 10 seconds which is certainly not affordable.
oh, so now terran has to save their scans instead of spamming mules? by the time enough infestors are out to make a big difference terran has 3 orbitals. burrowed infestors are slow and can't stack making their pathing awful in choke points, it's almost a nerf in that regard.
now they have to use ravens more? they are buffing them so maybe we'll see actual variety now
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
uhmm... pro players switched to BW because they can make more money from it. streams get more viewers because BW was a national sport in korea (the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw). SC2 didn't became a national sport in korea for several reasons which have nothing to do with the fun factor of the game. pretty obvious if you ask me.
So everything is fine and there's no cause for concern, then?
On October 22 2016 04:10 Charoisaur wrote: agree with everything DK said. great changes.
but... Burrowed infestors... does he really want to keep them in the game?
with how crap neural parasite is and how rarely infestors are used at all, burrowed spell casting is just what that unit needs. Also, they have a hurtbox while burrowed meaning units can't just walk over them which can actually be bothersome considering they are slower and you need your army to maneuver around them.
Infestors are already very common in zvt with roach ravager compositions or to fungal ghosts in lategame. You realize terran doesn't have reliable detection except ravens? burrowed infestors would mean terran would need either a raven every time they move out or scan every 10 seconds which is certainly not affordable.
oh, so now terran has to save their scans instead of spamming mules? by the time enough infestors are out to make a big difference terran has 3 orbitals.
now they have to use ravens more? they are buffing them so maybe we'll see actual variety now instead of mass bio + mule spam
okay, not arguing with you anymore, I should have known better.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
uhmm... pro players switched to BW because they can make more money from it. streams get more viewers because BW was a national sport in korea (the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw). SC2 didn't became a national sport in korea for several reasons which have nothing to do with the fun factor of the game. pretty obvious if you ask me.
So everything is fine and there's no cause for concern, then?
imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
no people don't care how a game is classified they care about what you do in them. nowadays few gamers enjoy a stressful 1vs1 multiplayer game where you can only blame yourself when you lose. they prefer games where you only have to control a single unit and play in a team with 4 other people.
Again, this doesn't make sense to me. People played SC2. They stopped playing. They had some interest in a game that is difficult.
I have never, personally, heard of someone who played the game from WoL through HotS quit because it was too hard ... I hear lots of people quit because it's just not fun.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
I think its a matter of selection. We have so many more games to watch and play, that SC2 is losing market share in the gaming industry.
That doesn't mean its losing interest. I think a lot of people are still interested in the game, but they choose not to play/watch other games because we have greater selection.
I can't believe this either.
I make time for things that are good. I play lots of games, and watch lots of games. ONLY SC2 is on the chopping block for me. I don't enjoy playing it any more. I don't even enjoy watching it any more. It's not that other games are "more fun" it's that SC2 simply isn't.
Yup.
All the talk about the genre, but the fact is, BW was the #1 in this genre. BW (and WC3 to a lesser point) basically WERE the RTS genre. Period.
BW never died from loss of interest, or people getting bored. The game was out more than 10 years and was still going strong. BW actually GREW when SC2 was announced.
BW lost players because Blizzard FORCED BW out of the way. Does everyone not remember how they forced BW pros to move to SC2, and what went down with Kespa the first couple years SC2 game out...?
BW suffered specifically because Blizzard decided to harm it in favor of SC2. Don't get it twisted, it didn't happen because of loss of interest.
Blizzard keeps bringing up Korean Pros, but Korean Pros are the ones who have complained about the direction more than anyone.
The fact that pros are all returning to BW, without all the money and fame that it used to provide, prove this point more than anything. They aren't even getting a fair share in return - they are doing it for fun as the primary reason. Actions speak louder than words.
RTS genre is not declining because of loss of interest, or money. It's declining because a game that was NEVER thought of as superior, was forced in to the spot BW was in. BW was in the spot that the RTS genre basically WAS Brood War. Blizzard did everything they could to try to kill BW and force SC2 in, no matter how much resistance. They refused to give fans of the series what they love about StarCraft in SC2, regardless of how much they begged for it. The reception was NEVER positive relative to BW. But Blizzard forced SC2 in to the spot where SC2 basically WAS the RTS genre.
Now that SC2 is declining to a point where it can't really be argued against anymore, people are trying to say its RTS genre dying? The only reason it seems that way is you have been fooled in to believing that SC2 is the pinnacle of the RTS genre. SC2 may be dying, but RTS will live on. People give up on SC2, but BW lives on, and if you have been watching for the last 2 years, and watch the Korean popularity rankings in bangs you can see BW has been slowly coming back to life.
People still are going back to the RTS game that had more accolades than any other, and leaving the one that was forced in to it's position by the developers who decided to compete against themselves in an attempt to kill the popularity of their own game.
That decision is now biting them in the ass. And don't be fooled by these community updates - Blizzards know it too. Hence SC2's development moving towards mission packs & co-op, and the so coincidentally timed updates on BW Remastered coming soon. Again, actions speak louder than words. That's the real reason why in this community update they don't really care if competitive SC2 declines at this point. They don't need new players for competitive SC2, because competitive players have always been happier on BW, and BW remastered will give them a new home that they can profit on.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
uhmm... pro players switched to BW because they can make more money from it. streams get more viewers because BW was a national sport in korea (the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw). SC2 didn't became a national sport in korea for several reasons which have nothing to do with the fun factor of the game. pretty obvious if you ask me.
So everything is fine and there's no cause for concern, then?
imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Lolol, can't tell if denial or..
Nah it has to just be denial.
RTS is merely a label, if SC2 was the game it was supposed to be, it would be on top, not usurped by its predecessor. Look at the numbers man and then the denial will waaash itself away.
The only time that the BW stream numbers don't completely dwarf SC2 stream numbers is when all the Koreans are asleep.
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
I disagree.
Players will play a fun game, no matter the difficulty level. If people were having such a blast in SC2, they'd invite their friends ... who would then also begin to have fun ... and communities would spring up with enthusiasm for the game. The base would grow, and grow.
Instead, people leave. They're not leaving because the game's hard. They're leaving because the game isn't fun any more.
But, I guess since everything's ok, no one will notice my departure. Or Spyrian's. Or the next person's. Until you're left with a few thousand people playing the "best RTS around".
I genuinely hope that you're happy with the game that you get from that. As for me, I've been waiting a long time for them to make a switch. If they don't by Blizzcon, I'll be dust in the wind as well.
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
Really?
Then how come during the last 2-3 years the pro players have left SC2 for BW? That's not losing interest in RTS, that's losing interest in SC2. 2-3 years ago SC2 always had WAY WAY WAY more streams than BW going, way more viewers. Nowdays, look on the right side of your screen, a couple SC2 players, and hordes of BW players, with far more viewers.
This shows pro players not only enjoy BW more, but viewers/casual fans of SC enjoy BW more.
uhmm... pro players switched to BW because they can make more money from it. streams get more viewers because BW was a national sport in korea (the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw). SC2 didn't became a national sport in korea for several reasons which have nothing to do with the fun factor of the game. pretty obvious if you ask me.
So everything is fine and there's no cause for concern, then?
imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
humm, I think basically the reason why the situation is like this in Korea (with lots more people playing in PC bangs too) is because SC1 is a lot more fun I'm sure, many (pros) who went back were happy to find the game they enjoy better as well as "make more money" if they do!
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
I've always thought that the attack from Oracles needs to be outright removed, so that it can be a flying spellcaster that focuses on things like detection and tagging. It doesn't need to be able to do game ending harassment.
Just brainstorming here, but in a world where Adepts rule the early game against Terran and Zerg, could we put Photon Overcharge on the Oracle and finally remove the Mothership Core altogether?
When Tanks are buffed to 70 damage, and Cyclones are a decent anti-Mutalisk option, what function does the Widow Mine serve other than worker harassment? Can we remove it? What kind of skill based harassment could be added instead?
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
Sigaty et al have already said they won't make anything that competes with SC2 for the next 10 years. There is not enough potential revenue to justify a new full release of an RTS game for another 10 years.
i'm very happy with how they're supporting SC2 though.
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
Come back to reality, man. Look at what is in front of you. Leagues are disappearing!!! Look at the numbers in Korea - then check logs for them over the last 2 years. You will see SC2 with a huge lead on BW, and now SC2 has dropped dozens of places and BW.
In Korea, BroodWar is up to number FOUR. Only behind LoL/Overwatch/Fifa.
SC2 used to be well ahead of BW, and BW dropped down. WarCraft 3 is more popular than SC2!!!
If RTS is dead, how come SC2 is the least popular of all the major RTS games right now?
SC2 is the newest of them, had the most investment of all of them, and is doing the worst of all of them...
On October 22 2016 08:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Sigaty et al have already said they won't make anything that competes with SC2 for the next 10 years. There is not enough potential revenue to justify a new full release of an RTS game for another 10 years.
Again bringing that up even though I've addressed it to you a number of times. If they announce a new game this year, with the typical time between announcement > release, they wouldn't be out of beta until the 10 year point.
This is besides the fact that SC Remastered is supposed to be revealed by the end of this year, and will directly be competing with SC2.
You are really taking the word from Blizzard that they won't compete with their own game? After releasing SC2 and competing with Brood War for the last 6 years...?
They debunked that statement themselves. Which is besides the point that they will not compete if they announce something this year anyway.
Which is besides the point that you claim Blizzard won't be investing in RTS anymore because of the lack of interest... Yet you have been saying that for years and they are STILL investing money in to RTS.
I really wonder how people get so out of touch with reality... Still making the same claims for years when Blizzard is doing specifically what you have been saying they will not do. Still making the same claims about RTS players when their actions are completely contradictory to what you claim...
LotV represented less than 2% of ATVI revenue in 2015 and 2016 and they've given up on selling lots of copies of the game which is why another RTS is not on the way.
the entire RTS genre continues to decline. this "all the major rtses" comment.. you can just cherry pick the RTS games you want to make ur comment seem correct.
Blizzard's #1 priority is sales which is why they are not making another RTS. There is no point in spending good money after bad. The SC franchise has brand value and Blizzard is investing in keeping the brand strong.
Look for Blizzard to exploit the SC IP in another genre.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
On October 22 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote: LotV represented less than 2% of ATVI revenue in 2015 and 2016 and they've given up on selling lots of copies of the game which is why another RTS is not on the way.
the entire RTS genre continues to decline. this "all the major rtses" comment.. you can just cherry pick the RTS games you want to make ur comment seem correct.
Blizzard's #1 priority is sales which is why they are not making another RTS. There is no point in spending good money after bad. The SC franchise has brand value and Blizzard is investing in keeping the brand strong.
Blizzard has already said they will work on another RTS after LotV. You have already been debunked on that statement.
Your talking about LotV making little money, that doesn't indicate a problem with RTS, that indicates a problem with LotV.
The entire RTS genre was held up by BW. All other RTS games declined even before SC2 was released.
BW was declining only due to Blizzards involvement, and it has resurged over the last few years.
WarCraft 3 has resurged as well.
SC2 is the only major RTS that has less numbers than it had 1.5 years ago. The other 2 major ones are GROWING.
Blizzard straight up said in this update that their #1 priority is not sales. So your saying Blizzard are liars? Would be about time you admit that. But youd never say that.
Again, come back to reality. The double standard is so obvious, and ruins all your credibility.
The one thing I can never really understand is the Korean "the game is too hard complaint"... I mean, aren't these mostly the same people that were playing BROOD WAR?
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
The following changes are being implemented today to the Testing section of Multiplayer, as well as the Balance Test Extension Mod.
Siege Tank -In Siege mode, Crucio Shock Cannon weapon attack period changed from 2 to 2.14.
Swarm Host -Locust Acid Spit weapon damage decreased from 12 to 10.
Tempest -Anti-ground weapon range increased from 6 to 8. -The Disruption Sphere ability replaced with the Disruption Blast. Disruption Blast: -Tempest charges up for 4 seconds, and then stuns enemy ground units and ground structures in the target area for 7 seconds. -Cast range is 10. -Area of effect radius is 1.95. -43 second own.
Bug Fixes Fixed an issue with the Changeling's timed life duration.
On October 22 2016 06:09 WeddingEpisode wrote: They're buffing Cyclone AA? It is so good right now, why in the world?
Wait, why is Corruptor lacking? Slow firing?
Terran could deal with it now.
I think it's because they are very one dimensional. They kill very specific type of units and once those units are dead they are pretty much a waste of supply/gas. I mean I guess you could be cute and have them go pee on buildings, but aside from the gimmick factors they don't really do much. Also, they shoot slow, and have slow movement speed. Their only upside is that they morph into BL and have high starting health/armor.
On October 22 2016 09:06 NKexquisite wrote: The one thing I can never really understand is the Korean "the game is too hard complaint"... I mean, aren't these mostly the same people that were playing BROOD WAR?
That's actually at the core of my point I've been discussing.
BW actually is the harder game in my opinion. But the difference is, BW focused on also being easy to pick up (lower skill floor), and fun factor.
Let's look at the differences in design direction. BW was naturally hard doing only decisions of what would be best for the strategy game.
Now let's look at sc2. They went in to SC2 with the intent of making a tournament game. Not a "fun" game. Not a game that appeals to casuals but has enough depth and high enough skill cap for hardcore.
Even before release, they decided to intentionally TRY to make macro harder, hence macro mechanics. These were 100% intended at the time to make the game "harder". Not because they are fun. Not because it's best for the game. Not because they offer strategic choices. Explicitly to make the game harder.
I call this "artificial difficulty". It is harder mechanically, but not strategically or even competitively. You are competing against yourself, and not the other player. But more importantly, without strategic merit, it's just not fun.
You can find so many other examples of this. Their economic solution. Their solution to death balls. Their increase in abilities to solve problems.
These all follow the design intent of adding artificial difficulty, rather than strategic merit. This differs from BW.
RTS, by design, will always be challenging without trying. It's the nature of controlling so many units, buildings, and locations. It is not possible for a human player to play perfect. Without all the steps blizzard took in SC2.
Their idea was misguided from the beginning. So now, we have a game focused less on strategy, more on mechanics, loaded with "artificial difficulty".
Then factor in the volatility. Scoutings more volatile, counters are more volatile, the economy is more volatile. This all adds up to feeling less fair and more like bullshit if you lose, and cheesy if you win.
This is what Koreans mean by too hard. You already couldn't play perfect in BW, but they went out of their way in SC2 to try to inflate the difficulty at the price of strategy and fun.
BW is harder, but each second of BW is filled with more strategic decision making, more multitasking, more ways to beat your opponent with micro rather than abilities. And most of all, more of a focus on fun and fairness in their high skull cap, without being overly volatile.
I would add "too random" is probably part of what they mean by "too hard", volatility makes random, because volatility is "fast and large damage", which in a RTS is hard to manage since you can only be looking at one spot on the map at a time, there is a random factor there that is fueled by volatility (not to mention it is not possible to have 100% control on everything that happens even on your screen, some units will always get to shoot at stuff without you being able to tell the target, or reliably dodge the damage best, more volatility increases the damage that you don't get a chance to control)
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
Yup.. A by product of rushing lotv out 5 months early.
If you played LotV beta before they pushed up the release date, the 12 worker start wasn't an issue. Becsuse macro mechanics were removed. Macro mechanics accelerate economic scaling. Without them, the economy scaled up way slower. Expanding was around the same time periods of HotS, except until 2-3 bases, you HAD to skirmish with only a handful of units to capture each expansion and hold it to a point where the economy accelerated.
The pacing was quite good. Main issue was the mineral costs needed to be rebalanced for units a bit. But that was totally doable with 6 months of dev time before the original release date.
They even did a poll at the time, reverting to hots mechanics was the least voted for, and 80% voted for complete removal (rather than the automatic proposal or revert). But release date got pushed up, and they revert the mechanics with contradictory reasoning, even after admitting directly that they believed removal was better design.
The pacing was quite fun, and 12 worker start only made early game start faster, but economic acceleration was slower.
But once they reverted, we have both faster start AND scaling. But no change in unit or structure costs???
Now it's just out of control. Basically the start of the game ur expanding , the early skirmishes from beta were replaced with crazy harassment forces, T2 battles happen at the time T1 used to happen, early T1 battles not really existent anymore, tiers of units can be mostly skipped in a rush towards T3.
It don't make any sense. But what else could they do when they suddenly push up release date from late March to mid November and have a shorter testing phase than planned?
We needed the old blizzard at that time. Instead, they screwed SC2 by releasing early, instead of their old motto of "we do not release until it's ready".
Absolutely no true software developers will tell you 2 weeks of testing is enough to release a game after making such drastic changes to the core of the game like they did with the economy. Every system in an RTS is built upon economy. The entire game needed testing for all 3 races. 2 weeks was not enough time. And we see how that ended up...
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
Yup.. A by product of rushing lotv out 5 months early.
If you played LotV beta before they pushed up the release date, the 12 worker start wasn't an issue. Becsuse macro mechanics were removed. Macro mechanics accelerate economic scaling. Without them, the economy scaled up way slower. Expanding was around the same time periods of HotS, except until 2-3 bases, you HAD to skirmish with only a handful of units to capture each expansion and hold it to a point where the economy accelerated.
The pacing was quite good. Main issue was the mineral costs needed to be rebalanced for units a bit. But that was totally doable with 6 months of dev time before the original release date.
They even did a poll at the time, reverting to hots mechanics was the least voted for, and 80% voted for complete removal (rather than the automatic proposal or revert). But release date got pushed up, and they revert the mechanics with contradictory reasoning, even after admitting directly that they believed removal was better design.
The pacing was quite fun, and 12 worker start only made early game start faster, but economic acceleration was slower.
But once they reverted, we have both faster start AND scaling. But no change in unit or structure costs???
Now it's just out of control. Basically the start of the game ur expanding , the early skirmishes from beta were replaced with crazy harassment forces, T2 battles happen at the time T1 used to happen, early T1 battles not really existent anymore, tiers of units can be mostly skipped in a rush towards T3.
It don't make any sense. But what else could they do when they suddenly push up release date from late March to mid November and have a shorter testing phase than planned?
We needed the old blizzard at that time. Instead, they screwed SC2 by releasing early, instead of their old motto of "we do not release until it's ready".
Absolutely no true software developers will tell you 2 weeks of testing is enough to release a game after making such drastic changes to the core of the game like they did with the economy. Every system in an RTS is built upon economy. The entire game needed testing for all 3 races. 2 weeks was not enough time. And we see how that ended up...
they tested removing macro mechanics and it was terrible. most pros/personalities spoke against it. So they re-added it and saw that the game was in a great spot so they released the game. why wait longer when the game is already as good as it can possibly get?
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
Yup.. A by product of rushing lotv out 5 months early.
If you played LotV beta before they pushed up the release date, the 12 worker start wasn't an issue. Becsuse macro mechanics were removed. Macro mechanics accelerate economic scaling. Without them, the economy scaled up way slower. Expanding was around the same time periods of HotS, except until 2-3 bases, you HAD to skirmish with only a handful of units to capture each expansion and hold it to a point where the economy accelerated.
The pacing was quite good. Main issue was the mineral costs needed to be rebalanced for units a bit. But that was totally doable with 6 months of dev time before the original release date.
They even did a poll at the time, reverting to hots mechanics was the least voted for, and 80% voted for complete removal (rather than the automatic proposal or revert). But release date got pushed up, and they revert the mechanics with contradictory reasoning, even after admitting directly that they believed removal was better design.
The pacing was quite fun, and 12 worker start only made early game start faster, but economic acceleration was slower.
But once they reverted, we have both faster start AND scaling. But no change in unit or structure costs???
Now it's just out of control. Basically the start of the game ur expanding , the early skirmishes from beta were replaced with crazy harassment forces, T2 battles happen at the time T1 used to happen, early T1 battles not really existent anymore, tiers of units can be mostly skipped in a rush towards T3.
It don't make any sense. But what else could they do when they suddenly push up release date from late March to mid November and have a shorter testing phase than planned?
We needed the old blizzard at that time. Instead, they screwed SC2 by releasing early, instead of their old motto of "we do not release until it's ready".
Absolutely no true software developers will tell you 2 weeks of testing is enough to release a game after making such drastic changes to the core of the game like they did with the economy. Every system in an RTS is built upon economy. The entire game needed testing for all 3 races. 2 weeks was not enough time. And we see how that ended up...
they tested removing macro mechanics and it was terrible. most pros/personalities spoke against it. So they re-added it and saw that the game was in a great spot so they released the game. why wait longer when the game is already as good as it can possibly get?
So your going to straight up lie now...? lol
Most pros were satisfied with it, only a few spoke out of it (most vocal being TLO), as well as some on this forum spoke for it (QXC made a big post supporting it.
The general consensus was, it's fun, but needs rebalancing of minerals, especially for Terran. Which also led to debates about Terran's macro mechanic being more rewarding and less risk compared to the other classes.
As I mentioned before, polls had 80% support for FULL REMOVAL.
And your whole second sentence? Complete BS lie. Want proof? They set the release date BEFORE they even dropped the patch. The game still had automated reduced macro mechanics at the time they pushed up release date. Weeks later the patch actually came out (around a month before release) and only with 2 weeks left in testing, because they did not do testing until release.
They did not even SEE the spot the game was in before they chose to push the release date up! They did not get to see how the game looked with 12 worker start + hots macro mechanics + unit rebalances AT ALL at that point.
They basically gave themselves ONLY 2 weeks of testing data, and under a month, to perform all the balance changes for release, which was not nearly enough time for players to even ADAPT to the new economy.
I'm a software developer myself, and there's no way you could gather accurate metrics of balance or the economy in only 2 weeks. How long were you experimenting with builds and strategies at release?
Did you forget how the release went...? The game was as good as it gets??? There wasn't a single pro player (korean or foreign) out there that did not bring up serious balance issues. That's when players started quitting. And almost every balance patch since LotV came out was adjusting things that were issues specifically because of that revert.
Did you forget how the release went...? The game was as good as it gets??? There wasn't a single pro player (korean or foreign) out there that did not bring up serious balance issues. That's when players started quitting. And almost every balance patch since LotV came out was adjusting things that were issues specifically because of that revert.
the only balance issue that needed to be adressed after release was adept -1 damage. libs and parasitic bomb also got a slight nerf but that wasn't as important.
On October 22 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote: LotV represented less than 2% of ATVI revenue in 2015 and 2016 and they've given up on selling lots of copies of the game which is why another RTS is not on the way.
the entire RTS genre continues to decline. this "all the major rtses" comment.. you can just cherry pick the RTS games you want to make ur comment seem correct.
Blizzard's #1 priority is sales which is why they are not making another RTS. There is no point in spending good money after bad. The SC franchise has brand value and Blizzard is investing in keeping the brand strong.
Blizzard has already said they will work on another RTS after LotV. You have already been debunked on that statement.
Your talking about LotV making little money, that doesn't indicate a problem with RTS, that indicates a problem with LotV.
The entire RTS genre was held up by BW. All other RTS games declined even before SC2 was released.
BW was declining only due to Blizzards involvement, and it has resurged over the last few years.
WarCraft 3 has resurged as well.
SC2 is the only major RTS that has less numbers than it had 1.5 years ago. The other 2 major ones are GROWING.
Blizzard straight up said in this update that their #1 priority is not sales. So your saying Blizzard are liars? Would be about time you admit that. But youd never say that.
growing? LOL. growing everywhere except in terms of revenue and profit. which is the metric studios use to determine if they'll work on a game. revenue and profit.
i stated my rebuttal in my last post: Blizzard has given up on making SC2 popular. even at its peak BW and SC2 represented so little revenue that they've given up on trying to make it a big revenue source. they are maintaining the brand strength of SC so they can make an SC game in another genre.
Blizzard has never said its making another RTS. Sigaty said the "nothing will compete with SC2 for the next 10 years" in 2015 so that by the time 2025 rolls around no one will be left screaming for another RTS.
the release of new RTS games has slowed to a crawl because revenue generated by those games is declining and has been declining for many years.
Blizzard had to sell LotV for $40 as an independent stand alone game. Another sign there is less cash to be made in the genre. WoL was $60, and HotS was $40 and you had to own WoL. Blizzard is an excellent indicator of the decline of the genre. So is Ensemble, EALA, CA and Relic.
in the 90s news studios were popping up every where making new RTS games with bigger and bigger budgets every year. What did we get in 2016 for RTS games? NOT MUCH.
Is TL adding new RTS teams to their pro roster? are we getting a new WC3 or CoH2 or DoW3 team? should we be screaming with anger because TL management correctly identified the direction the RTS genre was going and elected to add many non-RTS teams? TL saw the writing on the wall years ago and reacted correctly.
dayvie doesn't get it! they want to make the easier to play so its more fun to play. this doesn't mean automatically mean a decrease in skill cap, it means a decrease in technical abilities,,,by making the game easier it will make the games longer which will allow pros to show skills rather than being killed by something such as a missed harassment unit...
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
Yup.. A by product of rushing lotv out 5 months early.
If you played LotV beta before they pushed up the release date, the 12 worker start wasn't an issue. Becsuse macro mechanics were removed. Macro mechanics accelerate economic scaling. Without them, the economy scaled up way slower. Expanding was around the same time periods of HotS, except until 2-3 bases, you HAD to skirmish with only a handful of units to capture each expansion and hold it to a point where the economy accelerated.
The pacing was quite good. Main issue was the mineral costs needed to be rebalanced for units a bit. But that was totally doable with 6 months of dev time before the original release date.
They even did a poll at the time, reverting to hots mechanics was the least voted for, and 80% voted for complete removal (rather than the automatic proposal or revert). But release date got pushed up, and they revert the mechanics with contradictory reasoning, even after admitting directly that they believed removal was better design.
The pacing was quite fun, and 12 worker start only made early game start faster, but economic acceleration was slower.
But once they reverted, we have both faster start AND scaling. But no change in unit or structure costs???
Now it's just out of control. Basically the start of the game ur expanding , the early skirmishes from beta were replaced with crazy harassment forces, T2 battles happen at the time T1 used to happen, early T1 battles not really existent anymore, tiers of units can be mostly skipped in a rush towards T3.
It don't make any sense. But what else could they do when they suddenly push up release date from late March to mid November and have a shorter testing phase than planned?
We needed the old blizzard at that time. Instead, they screwed SC2 by releasing early, instead of their old motto of "we do not release until it's ready".
Absolutely no true software developers will tell you 2 weeks of testing is enough to release a game after making such drastic changes to the core of the game like they did with the economy. Every system in an RTS is built upon economy. The entire game needed testing for all 3 races. 2 weeks was not enough time. And we see how that ended up...
they tested removing macro mechanics and it was terrible. most pros/personalities spoke against it. So they re-added it and saw that the game was in a great spot so they released the game. why wait longer when the game is already as good as it can possibly get?
So your going to straight up lie now...? lol
Most pros were satisfied with it, only a few spoke out of it (most vocal being TLO), as well as some on this forum spoke for it (QXC made a big post supporting it.
The general consensus was, it's fun, but needs rebalancing of minerals, especially for Terran. Which also led to debates about Terran's macro mechanic being more rewarding and less risk compared to the other classes.
As I mentioned before, polls had 80% support for FULL REMOVAL.
And your whole second sentence? Complete BS lie. Want proof? They set the release date BEFORE they even dropped the patch. The game still had automated reduced macro mechanics at the time they pushed up release date. Weeks later the patch actually came out (around a month before release) and only with 2 weeks left in testing, because they did not do testing until release.
They did not even SEE the spot the game was in before they chose to push the release date up! They did not get to see how the game looked with 12 worker start + hots macro mechanics + unit rebalances AT ALL at that point.
They basically gave themselves ONLY 2 weeks of testing data, and under a month, to perform all the balance changes for release, which was not nearly enough time for players to even ADAPT to the new economy.
I'm a software developer myself, and there's no way you could gather accurate metrics of balance or the economy in only 2 weeks. How long were you experimenting with builds and strategies at release?
Did you forget how the release went...? The game was as good as it gets??? There wasn't a single pro player (korean or foreign) out there that did not bring up serious balance issues. That's when players started quitting. And almost every balance patch since LotV came out was adjusting things that were issues specifically because of that revert.
I vividly remember vast majority didn't like auto mechanics, both pros and casuals.
On October 22 2016 07:59 Spyridon wrote: Blizzard says sales are not the goal.
thanks for the laugh. check out any ATVI quarterly. then check out the historical stock price for ATVI since Activision merged with Blizzard. ROFLMAO.
I don't deserve the credit. I had very little to do with it. Blizzard were the ones who straight up said it. Here ya go...
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
Why don't you send them over a laugh so they can have your feedback?
On October 22 2016 08:36 Charoisaur wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:31 Spyridon wrote:
On October 22 2016 08:15 Charoisaur wrote:
(the "more viewers" you refer to are only korean based btw)
Majority of viewers of StarCraft period are koreans. When is the last time you seen a twitch stream in the top 5 streams that wasn't Korean?
On October 22 2016 08:19 Charoisaur wrote: imo the game is in the best state it's ever been, so yes there's no cause for concern. there's nothing we can do about players leaving the game.
Okay, so you think it's the best state it's ever been, but more pro players are leaving and leagues are getting cancelled than ever.
So apparently, the general consensus does not agree with you. Do you think that it's not reason for concern that the general consensus is having an exodus from a competitive game?
Competitive games don't survive without enough players for matchmaking to be extremely accurate - which requires a LOT of players.
Hows competitive SC2 going to survive with less and less leagues....? But that's no prob for concern?
players are leaving because they prefer MOBAs/FPSs over RTS games. most casters and pros also say that sc2 is in the best state it's ever been so it's more likely that the general consensus does not agree with YOUR opinion.
Pros think it's the best state it's ever been? That's why more of them have quit than ever? That's why more have went back to BW than ever?
More pro players have left SC2 for BW, than did for LoL/Dota/Overwatch or any other game.
Most casters have already left the game...
which pro players left the game because they don't enjoy it anymore? most players either have to quit because of military or in the case of Flash/Effort/Rain and maybe Jaedong switched to bw because they can make more money from it. foreign pros are more motivated than ever and many pros like Nerchio have specifically stated that the game is more enjoyable than ever. casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Incontrol etc say the same. Quote me a single pro player/caster saying that the game isn't fun anymore, I haven't heard a single one.
it's quite true that when it's your job to cast the game, you're less likely to publicly talk about the game not being that much fun actually a french caster made a video about this a few days ago, his name is anoss, he explained why he thinks 12 worker start for example is a reason for decline of SC2 fun for casual players ;; he said apparently MLord confirmed the same thoughts for high level play
Yup.. A by product of rushing lotv out 5 months early.
If you played LotV beta before they pushed up the release date, the 12 worker start wasn't an issue. Becsuse macro mechanics were removed. Macro mechanics accelerate economic scaling. Without them, the economy scaled up way slower. Expanding was around the same time periods of HotS, except until 2-3 bases, you HAD to skirmish with only a handful of units to capture each expansion and hold it to a point where the economy accelerated.
The pacing was quite good. Main issue was the mineral costs needed to be rebalanced for units a bit. But that was totally doable with 6 months of dev time before the original release date.
They even did a poll at the time, reverting to hots mechanics was the least voted for, and 80% voted for complete removal (rather than the automatic proposal or revert). But release date got pushed up, and they revert the mechanics with contradictory reasoning, even after admitting directly that they believed removal was better design.
The pacing was quite fun, and 12 worker start only made early game start faster, but economic acceleration was slower.
But once they reverted, we have both faster start AND scaling. But no change in unit or structure costs???
Now it's just out of control. Basically the start of the game ur expanding , the early skirmishes from beta were replaced with crazy harassment forces, T2 battles happen at the time T1 used to happen, early T1 battles not really existent anymore, tiers of units can be mostly skipped in a rush towards T3.
It don't make any sense. But what else could they do when they suddenly push up release date from late March to mid November and have a shorter testing phase than planned?
We needed the old blizzard at that time. Instead, they screwed SC2 by releasing early, instead of their old motto of "we do not release until it's ready".
Absolutely no true software developers will tell you 2 weeks of testing is enough to release a game after making such drastic changes to the core of the game like they did with the economy. Every system in an RTS is built upon economy. The entire game needed testing for all 3 races. 2 weeks was not enough time. And we see how that ended up...
they tested removing macro mechanics and it was terrible. most pros/personalities spoke against it. So they re-added it and saw that the game was in a great spot so they released the game. why wait longer when the game is already as good as it can possibly get?
So your going to straight up lie now...? lol
Most pros were satisfied with it, only a few spoke out of it (most vocal being TLO), as well as some on this forum spoke for it (QXC made a big post supporting it.
The general consensus was, it's fun, but needs rebalancing of minerals, especially for Terran. Which also led to debates about Terran's macro mechanic being more rewarding and less risk compared to the other classes.
As I mentioned before, polls had 80% support for FULL REMOVAL.
And your whole second sentence? Complete BS lie. Want proof? They set the release date BEFORE they even dropped the patch. The game still had automated reduced macro mechanics at the time they pushed up release date. Weeks later the patch actually came out (around a month before release) and only with 2 weeks left in testing, because they did not do testing until release.
They did not even SEE the spot the game was in before they chose to push the release date up! They did not get to see how the game looked with 12 worker start + hots macro mechanics + unit rebalances AT ALL at that point.
They basically gave themselves ONLY 2 weeks of testing data, and under a month, to perform all the balance changes for release, which was not nearly enough time for players to even ADAPT to the new economy.
I'm a software developer myself, and there's no way you could gather accurate metrics of balance or the economy in only 2 weeks. How long were you experimenting with builds and strategies at release?
Did you forget how the release went...? The game was as good as it gets??? There wasn't a single pro player (korean or foreign) out there that did not bring up serious balance issues. That's when players started quitting. And almost every balance patch since LotV came out was adjusting things that were issues specifically because of that revert.
I vividly remember vast majority didn't like auto mechanics, both pros and casuals.
You're right people didn't really like auto-mechanics. But they liked no macro mechanics, or a big nerf to them.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
That's just loser talk
I like the fast paced version of Legacy. Heart of the Swarm is a bore compared to Legacy. Hell, I would want it faster. Rather than stressing mechanics, a game that stresses quick critical thinking skills would be far more respectable and unpredictable. And more fun. And funner to watch.
Like every first 10 minutes of Heart of the Swarm matches was the same mind numbing, repetitive de ja vu experience. Kind of like driving on the free way. You get dumber just by watching.
Make it faster.
Fan base and viewership are good indicators of the quality of the game. What do they have to lose? They already lost Proleague and five of the best teams in the world. An organization that was one of the most passionate supporters of Legacy of the Void.
"best game of its type" ye you are not even close and what a lame attitude Dont they REALLY play games themself? They seriously considder other rts games good, seriously?
Well, DK is pretty much saying "we don't give a damn" about an issue that's been echo's heavily in the community for years. How else do you expect them to react.
Its especially worse as it's coming right after closing down of ProLeague, a system that was only sustainable if sc2 was a mainstream game.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
I mean, it's pretty obvious they're NOT trying to grow the player base.
I will just quote this post on that thread from Voltz as it reflects EXACTLY how I feel about the game currently:
"It is StarCraft, for fucks sake, casual players just want to Craft a fucking army. Not instantly die because they didn't scout Oracle tech, or dt tech, or a silly 1 base cheese. In BroodWar, your standard build for the most part was able to account for pretty much anything your opponent could throw at you. Too many things can just outright kill you in Star 2. Not only that, the battles are mostly decided before they have even begun and there is nothing you can do about it. As pointed out by OP, battles end in literally 2 seconds. Where is the fun in that?"
Fixing the viper abduct with impunity this has to be channeled or charged over say 5 seconds giving you the opportunity to counter and the same goes for blinding cloud and parasitic bomb
Fixing 200/200 carrier vs terran, bc is the only option and you can kite them with tempest
Fixing the reaper grenade which makes tvt volatile and frustrating for everyone but every single friend who is in diamond or beneath also say that this gives them anxiety and is very frustrating to play against.
I will just quote this post on that thread from Voltz as it reflects EXACTLY how I feel about the game currently:
"It is StarCraft, for fucks sake, casual players just want to Craft a fucking army. Not instantly die because they didn't scout Oracle tech, or dt tech, or a silly 1 base cheese. In BroodWar, your standard build for the most part was able to account for pretty much anything your opponent could throw at you. Too many things can just outright kill you in Star 2. Not only that, the battles are mostly decided before they have even begun and there is nothing you can do about it. As pointed out by OP, battles end in literally 2 seconds. Where is the fun in that?"
I agree with you and this suggestions were said many times from the community, but apparently dev team is proud to think differently... In the end we lost both
On October 23 2016 03:00 SHODAN wrote: the new cyclone ground weapon has zero micro potential... bring back lock-on vs ground
Yeah it's just boring and Amove-y. Also its low speed makes it terrible at taking map control. New cyclone has no purpose. It's terrible at anti air, terrible at map control, terrible in big fights, it's only decent as a skirmisher but way too expansive to build for this sole use.
Old cyclone is better. It just needs a better distribution : 3 supply, 150/100 cost, 150 hps, but lower lock on DPS
On October 22 2016 04:00 Musicus wrote: Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase.
At the moment Blizzard's goal should be to keep the playerbase larger than zero. Without a strong Pro scene, I don't see this happening and no change to the balance will make any difference if no one's left playing the game.
> revert the ground weapon change > revert the anti-air weapon change > revert the movement speed nerf > revert the auto-cast removal > revert the health buff > keep the supply change > keep the reactor production change > reduce the cost to 125/75 and proportionally reduce lock-on damage to match the cost (-20% damage, 320 damage over 14 seconds) > bring back techlab upgrades for the cyclone: mag-field accelerator charon boosters: increases lock-on activation range for the ground-to-air weapon by 3 (activation range, not missile range)
What the hell are we supposed to do against Bio now? Stupid whinning always get Zergs nerfed. We just can't keep up with bio on the midgame, besides Bio being super strong, there's just no larvae to keep up and the economy doesn't favor zerg in this MU at least. Freaking hilarious we get yet another Nerf on the new patch when Zerg was the only race that seems nerfed. Stop giving us "contract" buffs that don't do anything or won't get used whatsoever as a justification to bring even more nerfs. SAD
On October 23 2016 07:35 blackxored wrote: What the hell are we supposed to do against Bio now? Stupid whinning always get Zergs nerfed. We just can't keep up with bio on the midgame, besides Bio being super strong, there's just no larvae to keep up and the economy doesn't favor zerg in this MU at least. Freaking hilarious we get yet another Nerf on the new patch when Zerg was the only race that seems nerfed. Stop giving us "contract" buffs that don't do anything or won't get used whatsoever as a justification to bring even more nerfs. SAD
If they nerf the ultra it opens up the opportunity for them to see the midgame isn't right and they have to do something; which could overall result in the match-up returning to its former glory. If they keep the ultra, we'll be stuck with "turtle until ultras" until the end times.
On October 23 2016 07:27 SHODAN wrote: nobody wants to use thors
There's that one Terran playing at Blizzcon this year who really likes making thors.
On October 23 2016 07:35 blackxored wrote: What the hell are we supposed to do against Bio now? Stupid whinning always get Zergs nerfed. We just can't keep up with bio on the midgame, besides Bio being super strong, there's just no larvae to keep up and the economy doesn't favor zerg in this MU at least. Freaking hilarious we get yet another Nerf on the new patch when Zerg was the only race that seems nerfed. Stop giving us "contract" buffs that don't do anything or won't get used whatsoever as a justification to bring even more nerfs. SAD
If they nerf the ultra it opens up the opportunity for them to see the midgame isn't right and they have to do something; which could overall result in the match-up returning to its former glory. If they keep the ultra, we'll be stuck with "turtle until ultras" until the end times.
You mean in 6-12 months from now on, looking at how quickly Blizzard patches LotV.
Now, I don't think many people would criticize Ultra armor nerf in itself. However, something else has to be buffed or something TvZ specific has to be nerfed to make it fair.
On October 23 2016 07:35 blackxored wrote: What the hell are we supposed to do against Bio now? Stupid whinning always get Zergs nerfed. We just can't keep up with bio on the midgame, besides Bio being super strong, there's just no larvae to keep up and the economy doesn't favor zerg in this MU at least. Freaking hilarious we get yet another Nerf on the new patch when Zerg was the only race that seems nerfed. Stop giving us "contract" buffs that don't do anything or won't get used whatsoever as a justification to bring even more nerfs. SAD
If they nerf the ultra it opens up the opportunity for them to see the midgame isn't right and they have to do something; which could overall result in the match-up returning to its former glory. If they keep the ultra, we'll be stuck with "turtle until ultras" until the end times.
You mean in 6-12 months from now on, looking at how quickly Blizzard patches LotV.
Now, I don't think many people would criticize Ultra armor nerf in itself. However, something else has to be buffed or something TvZ specific has to be nerfed to make it fair.
At first I'd like to see them at least try changing (removing?) liberator AA so mutas aren't a joke anymore. See how that impacts the game.
Why every week that i come here, i cant find any help to protoss? i mean, protoss always appears here when some nerfs come down. The only weapon protoss has right now, is the adept, and if blizzard is gonna nerf it, what buffs to compensate? i mean stalkers are bullshit in this expansion, collossus none existent.. i know why is the less played race but.. needs some balance, any help at all, u even take away time warp. Im just asking if there's gonna be or not, because i saw lots of protoss going to other games, and if this continues this way, im out 4 sure.
On October 23 2016 07:27 SHODAN wrote: nobody wants to use thors
untrue. i'm cool with using Thors. if stimmed marines are the mobile method of dealing with air and Thors are the immobile method of dealing with air i'm cool with that. its good that DK made it 100% clear what his thinking is behind the design of the Cyclone, Thor, and Marines along with their respective anti-air roles.
On October 23 2016 07:35 blackxored wrote: What the hell are we supposed to do against Bio now? Stupid whinning always get Zergs nerfed. We just can't keep up with bio on the midgame, besides Bio being super strong, there's just no larvae to keep up and the economy doesn't favor zerg in this MU at least. Freaking hilarious we get yet another Nerf on the new patch when Zerg was the only race that seems nerfed. Stop giving us "contract" buffs that don't do anything or won't get used whatsoever as a justification to bring even more nerfs. SAD
If they nerf the ultra it opens up the opportunity for them to see the midgame isn't right and they have to do something; which could overall result in the match-up returning to its former glory. If they keep the ultra, we'll be stuck with "turtle until ultras" until the end times.
You mean in 6-12 months from now on, looking at how quickly Blizzard patches LotV.
Now, I don't think many people would criticize Ultra armor nerf in itself. However, something else has to be buffed or something TvZ specific has to be nerfed to make it fair.
At first I'd like to see them at least try changing (removing?) liberator AA so mutas aren't a joke anymore. See how that impacts the game.
liberator bonus damage vs light is already being removed. Also banelings got a +10 health buff which might even be to much. Also Infestors...
I believe tvz is still slightly terran favoured atm, i think its because of the current mappool. Terran will have new tanks which i didn't test it to know if its better vs zerg than tankivacs Zerg will have ultralisk nerf and hp buffed banelings(don't know if they kept it buffed though?) and buffed hydras. Even though i think the impact of ultralisk nerf will be bigger overall and tvz will be less balanced, i am really happy that they went with this way, it can be balanced later if any imbalance occurs anyway.
remove Ignite Afterburners remove banshee speed remove muta regen and a bit of movement speed ---> with the elentos change (remoce AA from liberator) remowrk/remove MSC and P.O
i agree the games is too fast and there are way too many harras option.
On October 23 2016 07:27 SHODAN wrote: nobody wants to use thors
There's that one Terran playing at Blizzcon this year who really likes making thors.
TY builds thors because he wants to win. that's what how he makes money. it doesn't make them any less boring to play or observe. lock-on is an incredibly fun mechanic and unique to the cyclone. the old (fast) cyclone is incredibly fun to micro. they only needed to tweak the production/cost/damage, but as usual DK goes full retard.
I actually agree with the ultra nerf and quite like the overall idea behind it. What I would love is taking some steps to reduce mobility or harass damage.
TvZ is nothing but drop defense until ultra. That's bad for viewer and player because they are supposed to be fragile harass unit that showcase multitasking and micro.
Slow down everything and give time for more micro for viewing and playing
The likelihood of this game at this point being improved (not that it isn't fun now) by way of unit/balance improvement is little. Even if spell vs. spell, or range vs. spell, or speed vs. speed were ingeniously reconstructed such as to create a fast chess-like match of counteractions, proactive planning, and quick-thinking in RTS form with these relatively medium to small maps it might not make a difference in gameplay. These maps are fun but I think that they should branch out more into more complex and diverse types. This would be exciting and challenge players' coordination, and force improvement.
At this point we've discussed almost everything there is to discuss except maps.
Maps are the size of coordination limits (reachable areas with the mouse hand); they leave the necessity of constant scouting out; they leave side battle as few and far between; players don't have to use Camera Hotkeys very often; and they don't have and can't preposition smaller units in sabotaging fashion (because the opponents' army will just squash them).
More intricate maps (along with Unit size-to-movement change) would incur more limitations. For Example: areas where Massive Units can't go; no-fly zones; obstructed areas where deathballs are disrupted; water, tunnels, darker areas, etc...
So what if Blizzard ruled out high-ground way back in development?? If it would be really fun then maybe it's worth looking into again.
On October 22 2016 04:00 Musicus wrote: With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit + a nerf to the overall unit after upgrades.
On October 22 2016 04:00 Musicus wrote: With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit + a nerf to the overall unit after upgrades.
i really like this change to the Ultralisk.
I made pretty much exactly this proposition for BW a little while ago^^ ofc people were already talking about reducing ultra armor in sc2 since last year when lotv was in beta with strong argumentation, and I'm sure even before, same thing with mech etc
I don't mind thor being the dedicated factory AA for big engages because it does a very good job at it in frontal situations.
However, in every matchup the thor poses a big issue : - in TvZ they get picked off by vipers very easily. Or more accurately, RNGesus will decide wether your thors will get picked up by vipers, or will focus them as soon as they enter their range and somewhat trade with them. It's actually kind of the same issue with the BC. Abduct is so insanely powerfull at destroying very expansive units for 75 energy that you don't really wanna build them, and if you do, you're forced into camping behind a wall of turrets, late HOTS-style. Making the viper unable to abduct massive units would be much more fair overall and less of the ultimate swiss knife against everything that's bigger than a marauder. - in TvP, mech will NEVER happen as long as phenixes opener counters it so hilariously hard. Phenixes counter tank openers, cyclone openers, banshee openers, mine openers, and raven openers. The only thing it doesn't counter are marines. Against bio, it's not really a problem since protoss has to transition out of stargate tech if he wants to survive. But against mech, you can go straight into tempest. And the sole thor you'll be able to build won't allow you to push out to deny such a greedy transition, it'll simply shoot into a lone phenix and be useless the whole fight. You're forced into camping, you're forced into turreting up, or you're forced into building an amount of marines that'll be useless in mid game. Also, phenixes are quite good against vikings, so building a viking count in early mid game to push out is useless. The cyclone HAS to be usefull against the phenix. Or have the thor hard counter phenix straight into tempests somehow. - in TvT, the thor gets destroyed by both the tank and the liberator. Problem is, if air domination is decided by viking count only in early/mid game, that means that you can go straight into mass air. Which leads to boring games where opponents start massing ravens, vikings and liberators with a few tanks to secure ground as soon as their third is done. The cyclone should be able to snipe air units like the old one does or this will be the most boring TvT meta we'll end up with.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works. You want harass to be less of an issue? Then don't give players flying units which can delete entire mineral lines in a few seconds. (oracles, liberators, warped in adepts, baneling drops t1)
we would really love to encourage you guys to talk about specific changes that are needed rather than talking too much in general
Because you aren't able to come up with specific changes yourself? There were tons and tons of well written articles how to make the game "better" (how to achieve certain goals), cmon...
Very disappointed about some comments in this update, meh
On October 23 2016 15:51 TedBurtle wrote: give workers 100k HP, harras is nerfed
I mean don't go overboard but nerfing harass is the first step towards making the game better. The second is slowing down the pace of the game.
I agree 100%. Right now ZvT, which was absolutely my favorite match up in Brood War and SC2 up until blord infestor meta when I left, is so unforgiving, so quick, that I just don't enjoy playing Starcraft 2.
Rather than harass giving you small edges over your opponent it decides games. If the opening reaper gets the creep tumor or 1-2 drones the entire rest of the game is in Terrans court and I have to claw back. If the 2-1-1 push is at all successful the game is likely over and we're just playing it out incase T makes a mistake.
Man! What kind of game is that?
I try so hard to love this game but this level of punishment isn't lovable.
However there is a part 2 we're not discussing. When I don't want to play competitive ranked/unranked I play a different game. That's a big problem.
Harrassment too strong!? When I think of harrassment only terran comes to my mind. For the other races harrassment had to be invented first with invincible nydus, early game overlord drops, adepts, msc + tp back, oracles, load radius of warp prism and whatever else.
Terran harrassment has always been too strong (since 2010) but instead of nerfing it a) harrassment of other races was tried to be pushed to equal levels, and b) random buffs to units that should defend harrassments (queen buff, MSC, etc.)
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how the sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
lol come on man nobody's gonna buy this... it doesn't cost a lot of money to make some changes to a game that already has its engine and lots of things laid out.. haha.. not to mention the right direction was foreseeable loooooooooooooong time ago
relative to what other RTS franchises get we're getting amazing support. you can yap away about how cheap it is. why don't u just make ur own game dawg.
great, i compare real world products and actual support levels. i don't sit back in some idealized dreamworld and criticize Blizzard from fantasy land. it'll be interesting to see how your product and support compares to Blizzard's.
To create a good SC2 you just gotta do these three steps:
1. Bring everything back to WOL level (actually early HOTS would be working as well I assume).
2. Remove colossi & banelings.
3. Identify and fix what is wrong.
After that bring back units that still should have a place step by step not as key units but as alternatives.
Sure, macroboosters should be revised still and some other things. But that would get the essentials right and eliminate the heavily frustrating elements of the game.
Edit:
Just for the fun of it let me continue this for a bit:
3. ->
Recognize bio is way overpowered and nerf it. Recognize roaches now are too strong and nerf them (needed to be that strong before to face bio). ... Nerf immortal as a roach counter and roaches themselves -> mech gets viable/op without a single buff. etc.
Easy as that. Instead you had to evolve your game around op bio and its counters for half a decade.
On October 24 2016 08:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote: then don't make a stupid suggestion in the first place to compare a one man game to a mega wealthy corporation
i'm a consumer. i buy whatever provides me with the most entertainment for the lowest possible price. i make choices between available products. Spenlunky was made by 1 guy.
welcome to the real world free market.
i make a product that competes with products made by teams of guys. i have a couple of colleagues in the same boat. single man operations competing with giant corporations. in the most extreme case...1 friend of mine.. his #1 customer is Paypal and his product competes with SAP Crystal Reports.
for $40, LotV is a great deal and its great that 1 year later the support continues when just about every other developer would've abandoned a $40 game that sold 1 million copies.
On October 24 2016 08:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: relative to what other RTS franchises get we're getting amazing support. you can yap away about how cheap it is. why don't u just make ur own game dawg.
You say that as if Starcraft has a competitor in the RTS genre.
You say "why don't you make your own game" when we play Icefrogs game with a million others and watch his game he made with 5.5 million others.
This is not a RTS problem. Or a genre problem. Or that people prefer team games.
It's a game problem. SC2 has not been well managed and rather than accept the exodus to new/different games, people come up with a litany of excuses as to why it was not SC2s fault. My personal favorite is blaming it on luck.
The genre is not the reason tournaments have closed down. It isn't the reason professional players are switching to different games. In Wings of Liberty six years ago we were promised things would only get better and things have more or less stayed the same. It is time for the community to unite and hold the game accountable for its flaws so that we can move forward with Blizzard and say that changing the siege tanks attack cooldown by 0.3 seconds will not suddenly reveal the amazing game underneath. The time for drastic improvement was 5 years ago. This was not met. So the best time for drastic improvement is right now.
No more excuses. No more blame. We need honest and clear feedback from both players and pros, but also and much more importantly, from the people who have left. A professional player is a great asset to discuss high level balance. But a game can't be made from the top down if it's going to have a playerbase outside the top level players. The real feedback needed is from the folks that are never asked - those that moved on.
Accessibility and fun. That's what makes a great competitive game. Not the genre or some petty balance change that only affects the top 5% of players.
you think only about money, it is your absolute obsession, not mine, which is why I don't mind working on something that I'm not going to sell. I simply don't care about having paypal for a customer or competing with some giant corporation, and I'm not making a game that requires continuous support either.
the point is that this
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
usually i rebuttal the angry ranting. and that angry rant qualifies as "repeat the same stuff all the time".
if you bother to read my posts i discuss lots of shortcomings with SC2 and OW. Because i make realistic criticisms a large portion of my criticisms get dealt with. of the last 10 criticisms i've had about OW and SC2 blizzard has dealt with 9 of them.
for example. i don't think Blizzard will ever strip down the SC economy model so that it runs like C&C. So, when i'm tired of the in base economy babysitting of SC i just play C&C. There is no point in me making 100 "complaint posts" demanding a complete overhaul of the SC economy so that it runs like the RA3 economy. i just play RA3.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when i have to read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when it read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
maybe blizzard just knows better than the community? everyone here seems to think that only he knows how to make the game good and if blizzard doesn't design the game exactly to their appeal they're incompetent. Yes, things like micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. has been heavily discussed over the years but everyone has a different opinion on it. there's no way to make everyone happy so blizzard just does what THEY think is the best way to do and I trust experienced game designers more than random TL guys.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when it read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
I'm not nearly as convinced as you that all that was written in these articles about economy, pathing, and pacing are relevant and helpful in practice, but let's assume. Let's assume that all this feedback given to Blizzard was written by well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent people who considered the problems in depth and have a deep understanding of game design. Let's assume moreover that Blizzard's balance team has read and considered all this feedback, and that it hasn't either been lost in the inchoate masses of poor advice, or simply not passed on by community managers. If Blizzard followed that advice it still wouldn't make for a good game.
The proverb that "Too many captains will sink the ship" applies here. All the feedback given by the community doesn't result in a holistic game if you will. The solutions provided by one person clash with that of another. LaLush's ideas about what Starcraft's economic model should be to prevent stalemates aren't entirely compatible with what Zeromus suggested LotV's economic model should be, or Uvantak's ideas about worker pairing. Those ideas are probably reconcilable, but someone with the skill and understanding to reconcile them would no doubt have their own different ideas on what the game should be.
Certainly there is much room to be critical of Blizzard's decisions, but always following community advice (even good community advice) does not result in a good game. The community does much better as a barometer for problems than a compass for solving them.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when i have to read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
Overall SC2 went downhill from WOL at each and every turn. Somewhere around late 2011 i think, before the BLestor era, the game was so much fun to play. TvZ was lings bane mutas vs marine tanks, with a heavy focus on macro while agressive play was still allowed. TvT wasn't about doom droping or rushing tankivacs on that imba spot, it was about upgrades, positionning, and map control. And TvP was also pretty cool, with heavy marauder bioballs against stalker colossi, where you were allowed to drop as terran without dying to pylons and where protoss didn't have to fear that a single widow mine shot would kill his entire mineral line or templars group.
Then it went to shit. First, the abusive strats were never fixed and became common meta. BLfestor where terran had to litterally stay splitted all game long, while the game could end on a single fungal. Chargelot/archon bullshit builds where protoss Amoved his whole army, while terran had to kite and micro like the keyboard was on fire. ZvZ at ironsquid where we could literally see armies of broodlings and infested terran clash for dozens of minutes. When HOTS came out, the hellbat screwed so many tournaments because it didn't get patched right away. Then blink allins with 13 vision MSC made the game horrible to play against protoss. Then, the SH killed mech play and made PvZ horrible to watch. Then, when it was finally nerfed into something completely useless, cancer mecha were the aim of terran was to never ever attack came up. Oh and need i mention that during this whole time, protoss was virtually immune to any kind of early game agression with 5 min 13 range PFs?
Every single unit that was added to this game, except for the hellbat, the lurker and arguably adepts and roaches, is terrible in design and frustrating to play against. Oracles, MSC, widow mine, SH, liberator, cyclones, tempest, disruptors are ALL units that have been terrible to this game.
And yeah, there's been a LOT of constructive feedback from the community at each and every turn, and not only whiny BS "waah waah colossi are too strong my army melts because i have 40 marines and 2 vikings". But there's a point where a game designer has to make choice and bring good things to the game with concepts that are HEALTHY for the game.
For instance : most of the community agreed in HOTS that gateway needed a versatile fighter. When the adept as a unit was introduced, most people were pleased. The adept was supposed to be a frontliner that would help protoss deal with agression, secure bases, and eventually even make photon overcharge obsolete (because it'd help in defensive skirmishes). What is the adept in the end? A core fighter, sure. A good defensive unit? Nope, not at all. The best harass unit in the game? Yup, exactly. That's the problem right there. The adept could have been an interesting unit without an ability, with an attack animation that allowed micro, that had the tendency to stack and therefore would encourage protosses to split against AoE while using adepts. But no, it had to be the best harass unit in the game, for no reason whatsoever.
A game developper shouldn't rely on its community to voice the obviousness of what's wrong with the game. The dev team should have a vision for the game, with units that have clear role and that should be tweaked agressively if they are obviously being bad for the game.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when it read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
I'm not nearly as convinced as you that all that was written in these articles about economy, pathing, and pacing are relevant and helpful in practice, but let's assume. Let's assume that all this feedback given to Blizzard was written by well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent people who considered the problems in depth and have a deep understanding of game design. Let's assume moreover that Blizzard's balance team has read and considered all this feedback, and that it hasn't either been lost in the inchoate masses of poor advice, or simply not passed on by community managers. If Blizzard followed that advice it still wouldn't make for a good game.
The proverb that "Too many captains will sink the ship" applies here. All the feedback given by the community doesn't result in a holistic game if you will. The solutions provided by one person clash with that of another. LaLush's ideas about what Starcraft's economic model should be to prevent stalemates aren't entirely compatible with what Zeromus suggested LotV's economic model should be, or Uvantak's ideas about worker pairing. Those ideas are probably reconcilable, but someone with the skill and understanding to reconcile them would no doubt have their own different ideas on what the game should be.
Certainly there is much room to be critical of Blizzard's decisions, but always following community advice (even good community advice) does not result in a good game. The community does much better as a barometer for problems than a compass for solving them.
Obviously you cannot take everything 1:1 and be done with it, that is the part an actually skilled game designer comes in and makes it work though. A lot of these articles, videos, etc talk about general things, things even blizzard agreed on doing (more action, less deathballs, more bases all over the map, more micro opportunity, yada yada yada). Ofc you cannot take everything the community wrote, throw it in and hope for the best. You take it as inspiration, think about the general concept (do we want an economy which gives the player the choice of expanding and gaining an advantage that way, or do we want to force players to expand because minerals run out faster). Then you choose an implementation, something which creates the least concerning new problems. Do we want the defender to have an advantage? Can there be warpgates in the game if we really want that as a core concept? Do we maybe need high ground advantage of some sorts? More micro opprtunity as a goal? Do we just add spells after spells and call it a day, or do we focus on unit movement, positioning relative to other units, etc. Do we think unit interactions at a certain supply count get worse? (deathball) Why? Is it maybe really the pathing which allows this to happen in that form?
It is easy to say that blizzards knows best, just as easy as me saying the community wrote good stuff about all these topics. At least my pov has actual evidence you can read for yourself, decide if the general goals make sense, if even the implementation might be good and then discuss it with other members which are interested in this part of sc2, the design. If you "trust blizzard because they are so experienced" you appeal to authority, you appeal to authority in a field which isn't even clear cut at all, this is no science, there is no 100% right or wrong. Which makes discussing these things so important. Which makes trying it out so important. So no i don't just trust blizzard that different pathing wouldn't do much for the game, we never even saw the actual implementation of that pathing iirc.
It took blizzard years to actually give zerg something to deal with forcefields and you guys want to tell me they simply know best? Really? But yeah this is beating a dead horse, whatever i try to not care anymore. That should be the best solution.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be
No it is not, if it were you would have tested a lot of stuff the community wanted to try out. You want the game pace to be slower? Then change how the economy works.
they did everything they could within the budget allotted the game. very few RTS games get as long as a multiplayer beta as LotV had. i'm happy with how they sped up the economy and the pace of the game. i prefer more "fast and fluid" C&C style game play. WIth guys like Tim Morten, Greg Black, and Dustin Browder its no surprise that SC2 eventually took a turn towards the C&C style of RTS. We get lots and lots of testing and tuning that other RTS games can only dream of.
this puppy only sold a million copies at $40 each. we are getting absolutely incredible support considering the revenue BLizzard is getting from the game. Compare it to CoH2 where it was $60 for 2 factions and 1 matchup; they absolutely bled every last nickel they could out of the multiplayer community by charging another $15 for the 3rd faction. CoH2 has sold around 2 million copies.
right beside the quote of DK that you highlighted it mentions that sales are not their #1 priority. Blizzard is investing in the SC IP/franchise in order to keep the brand/franchise strong so that can make an SC game in another genre. Blizzard thinks loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term.
we're pretty lucky, as RTS fans, to get this kind of investment into the genre. no other RTS franchise gets it.
I really don't care about this angle at all, you repeat the same stuff all the time and there surely is truth to it. Still, the comments i quoted are beyond ridiculous. It's not (only) about the support they do, it's about the quality of it. Sure, we get weekly udates, we get patches, etc. All that stuff is amazing. But the end result is not that good, you can talk about your numbers all you want, at the end of the day i am reading these updates with ideas for the future, with phrases which claim they wanna have the "best sc2 possible" and i ask myself: "what happened in the past few years?" There was tons of feedback, dozens of well written articles about certain design choices, etc. Now they wanna have "specific feedback" ? Really? It was there all these years for things they apparently have problems with right now, for me this is a joke, a bad one. But yeah, pls tell me again that it's the only successful rts game in the past x years, pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The name alone sells the product at this point, it's blizzard and not some no name company. Most people don't even care about multiplayer at all, we do though. We discuss these things.
The tons of feedback that the community generates is a mountain of generalities, flawed ideas, and terrible suggestions. Your "dozens of well written articles" exist only through statistical inevitability due to the shear volume of ideas the community has. If Blizzard's request for "specific feedback" is a joke, your comment is the punchline.
I am not talking about the random guy posting his "solution to the problems". I am talking about stuff which was discussed over the years, where the problems of sc2 lie, how to fix them. I am talking about articles written about micro, economy, pathing, defenders advantage, pacing of the game, etc. A lot of great feedback, a lot of specific feedback. Blizzard always more or less ignored it, chose to use a different solution to a problem. Now we have stuff like photon overcharge in the game. One of the worst game mechanics in sc2 ever. Ask people here on TL, hardcore sc2 fans what they think about matchup quality comparisons hots -> lotv. Most people will probably say that the matchups got worse to spectate and worse to play as well. Are my comments overly negative? Maybe. But i simply get angry when it read the statements i quoted in my first post in this thread, it IS simply absurd.
I'm not nearly as convinced as you that all that was written in these articles about economy, pathing, and pacing are relevant and helpful in practice, but let's assume. Let's assume that all this feedback given to Blizzard was written by well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent people who considered the problems in depth and have a deep understanding of game design. Let's assume moreover that Blizzard's balance team has read and considered all this feedback, and that it hasn't either been lost in the inchoate masses of poor advice, or simply not passed on by community managers. If Blizzard followed that advice it still wouldn't make for a good game.
The proverb that "Too many captains will sink the ship" applies here. All the feedback given by the community doesn't result in a holistic game if you will. The solutions provided by one person clash with that of another. LaLush's ideas about what Starcraft's economic model should be to prevent stalemates aren't entirely compatible with what Zeromus suggested LotV's economic model should be, or Uvantak's ideas about worker pairing. Those ideas are probably reconcilable, but someone with the skill and understanding to reconcile them would no doubt have their own different ideas on what the game should be.
Certainly there is much room to be critical of Blizzard's decisions, but always following community advice (even good community advice) does not result in a good game. The community does much better as a barometer for problems than a compass for solving them.
Obviously you cannot take everything 1:1 and be done with it, that is the part an actually skilled game designer comes in and makes it work though. A lot of these articles, videos, etc talk about general things, things even blizzard agreed on doing (more action, less deathballs, more bases all over the map, more micro opportunity, yada yada yada). Ofc you cannot take everything the community wrote, throw it in and hope for the best. You take it as inspiration, think about the general concept (do we want an economy which gives the player the choice of expanding and gaining an advantage that way, or do we want to force players to expand because minerals run out faster). Then you choose an implementation, something which creates the least concerning new problems. Do we want the defender to have an advantage? Can there be warpgates in the game if we really want that as a core concept? Do we maybe need high ground advantage of some sorts? More micro opprtunity as a goal? Do we just add spells after spells and call it a day, or do we focus on unit movement, positioning relative to other units, etc. Do we think unit interactions at a certain supply count get worse? (deathball) Why? Is it maybe really the pathing which allows this to happen in that form?
It is easy to say that blizzards knows best, just as easy as me saying the community wrote good stuff about all these topics. At least my pov has actual evidence you can read for yourself, decide if the general goals make sense, if even the implementation might be good and then discuss it with other members which are interested in this part of sc2, the design. If you "trust blizzard because they are so experienced" you appeal to authority, you appeal to authority in a field which isn't even clear cut at all, this is no science, there is no 100% right or wrong. Which makes discussing these things so important. Which makes trying it out so important. So no i don't just trust blizzard that different pathing wouldn't do much for the game, we never even saw the actual implementation of that pathing iirc.
It took blizzard years to actually give zerg something to deal with forcefields and you guys want to tell me they simply know best? Really? But yeah this is beating a dead horse, whatever i try to not care anymore. That should be the best solution.
When did I ever say that Blizzard knew best? My argument isn't anything close to that. I don't believe that Blizzard has done a great job with SCII for that matter.
My argument is that your position that following the community's advice would have given a better game are false. At the end of the day you disagree with the decisions Blizzard has made. Fine. But your suggestions for a better decision-making process aren't well reasoned.
Blizzard does a decent job keeping SC2 around. I guess the bean-counters are already go haywire that the company keeps bnet 1.0 up and still invests Millions every year into a game that is almost not selling anymore. Imagine Blizzard was EA. Theyd killed of sc2 in 2013.
If you look at the numbers, you get the impression of balance. If you look at the competitors for an RTS game, you find none. zero, nada, niente. Well there are other games, but none remotely like sc2. So make the hardest 3D game in the world stick aroun for over half a decade, noone else is even trying. To the multiplayer design, I'd like less fokus on harassment, more on strategy. LOTV is giving the attacker every advantage.
On October 24 2016 15:03 KT_Elwood wrote: Blizzard does a decent job keeping SC2 around. I guess the bean-counters are already go haywire that the company keeps bnet 1.0 up and still invests Millions every year into a game that is almost not selling anymore. Imagine Blizzard was EA. Theyd killed of sc2 in 2013.
If you look at the numbers, you get the impression of balance. If you look at the competitors for an RTS game, you find none. zero, nada, niente. Well there are other games, but none remotely like sc2. So make the hardest 3D game in the world stick aroun for over half a decade, noone else is even trying. To the multiplayer design, I'd like less fokus on harassment, more on strategy. LOTV is giving the attacker every advantage.
I agree I'm so glad this game is still around with prologue closing I've been all sentimental. I hope sc2 manages to last because I don't see another rts on the horizon, the genre has had very few titles these past few years and none have been as good as sc2.
For example, when being harassed by Mutalisks, I can stim pack and quickly chase them off.
Mutalisks are the best unit in the game for harassment. When unscouted it's almost instant GG, otherwise they force you to stay on base and invest a lot on turrets, which hurts your production and expand potential... at that point the zerg is free to take the whole map. If you make liberators, then your medevac count drops, and you can't abuse stim to chase the mutas. There is a reason they were called "the free win unit". I wonder how many times the guy that wrote this have played as terran.... Come on Blizzard.... Do you work on balance playing VS the CPU or what??
With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit
Is this for real? Ultralisk buff? Because how would the zerg win games if the game is balanced, right? This is ridiculous, Blizz pls...
Please remember that this is a group effort
So you want the community to balance the game now. Nice move.
For example, when being harassed by Mutalisks, I can stim pack and quickly chase them off.
Mutalisks are the best unit in the game for harassment. When unscouted it's almost instant GG, otherwise they force you to stay on base and invest a lot on turrets, which hurts your production and expand potential... at that point the zerg is free to take the whole map. If you make liberators, then your medevac count drops, and you can't abuse stim to chase the mutas. There is a reason they were called "the free win unit". I wonder how many times the guy that wrote this have played as terran.... Come on Blizzard.... Do you work on balance playing VS the CPU or what??
The hell are you even talking about? Free win unit? What?
With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit
Is this for real? Ultralisk buff? Because how would the zerg win games if the game is balanced, right? This is ridiculous, Blizz pls...
It's a nerf to chitinous plating, at least try to finish reading the sentence you quoted.
With Ultralisk armor, we can try the popular suggestion of increasing the base armor by 1 point and reducing the armor the upgrade provides by 2 points for a slight buff to the base unit
Is this for real? Ultralisk buff? Because how would the zerg win games if the game is balanced, right? This is ridiculous, Blizz pls...
I recommend you to read the whole sentence. Armor changed from 3+5 (=8) to 4+3 (=7)
What The_Red_Viper said is also why you can hardly speak of specific changes that are significant without them going hand in hand with other changes that lead to a coherent overall better design. It's very questionable that you'd want the community to talk about little details rather than what kind of vision they want for the game overall. Everything works with everything else in a game, even more so a RTS. So the first step is to think of a overall intent, and then pinpoint all the spots that you want to change in order to achieve it. If you have no overall intent and just think of specific changes, the game ends up inconsistent.
For example, if I discuss the warpgate problem. As we know it comes with much all-in potential in the beginning of the game, and as a result early P units need to be weak enough that something like PO is also needed. I would suggest moving warpgate tech much later in the game, such as in dark shrine tech or perhaps templar archive or robo bay or fleet beacon level kind of tech. This is a significant change. If you make this change alone, first of all P loses in the early game a lot, so it's a balance problem. But it's also a design problem, because suddenly the early game of P has lost most of the harass. So you'd make changes to gateway units so they can be stronger and design new styles for P early game. By design the stalker is rather weak because it can blink. So you might want the stalker to lose blink. The relationships between the stalker and units in the game are now quite off, and you end up wanting to change most things. Tbh, I think that's the kind of change SC2 needs to be much better, something accross the board (and removing units), slower pace, less dps, less all in, less damaging harass, less volatility, less game breaking spells/abilities, more nuanced resource gathering system, and a different pathing with more defender advantage (this is extremely important for a strategy game so that things don't only happen on one spot in the map most times, since you can leave some things defending somewhere and have another bunch of units do something else elsewhere and.. things begin to spread out and engage more tactics and strategy ; it also frees up ofc your strategic options in terms of what you build) and more micro. Most importantly, make sure there are many styles available from early game with many nuances. In the end you could have a much better game with a lot more tactics and strategy and skill.
Regarding the T bioball. If the pathing is not so bally and units are more obstacles to each other (bit more collision radius look @war3 as an example not just BW if you want, its good example), the bio units will make positioning matter in order to let all units shoot (while the default pathing will also not provide a large default advantage to any AoE attack). Also, the Marine lol, it should not be able to move and shoot without losing damage, because it already has enormous damage value for cost, with instant ranged attack and stim. The animation is even broken. It should be locked in place while the rafale is shot, and only then move and if it does move you lose damage. It's just an example, you can't just change this alone, but that's a core mistake with the bioball from WoL that broke the game. Ofc it's easy to play so I know why they did this, having a T only campaign on release is also a way to tell new players what race they should play most comfortably in multiplayer at first. There is a lot to change with T and every race.
PS: this is also btw why I never use the vocabulary "buff" and "nerf", I think way too many people think of changes in terms of "buffing" and "nerfing" but in truth when you change something it rarely is just a matter of making something a little stronger or weaker, it changes the relationships of it with everything else, game design is not so simple minded as "buffing" and "nerfing" // which is why again usually changes should go hand in hand with other changes and most importantly be part of an overall intent, everything taken into account
On October 24 2016 18:15 rqPlan wrote: Say what you want, It's still a buff.
I doubt that +3 armor is meaningless so that everyone will stay at 4 armor.
There is a window and oportunity for the zerg with that buff. There are situations where this is a buff.
This is only a buff for that less than a minute time frame every game where the Terran is pushing and ultras are out but don't have plating yet. For however long the game goes on after that it's a big nerf.
On October 24 2016 18:15 rqPlan wrote: Say what you want, It's still a buff.
I doubt that +3 armor is meaningless so that everyone will stay at 4 armor.
There is a window and oportunity for the zerg with that buff. There are situations where this is a buff.
This is only a buff for that less than a minute time frame every game where the Terran is pushing and ultras are out but don't have plating yet.
And that minute is one of the worse parts about TvZ anyway. Gameplay that revolves about T hitting a timing like that sucks.
It's better if zerg has a better chance at surviving during that minute and Terran a better chance at winning afterwards.
Do you realize that timing won't exist anymore because there is no need to push since ultras are easy to deal with? Do you remember the utter garbage hots ultras? This will be just 1 armor above it, they will be ok vs bio but not that great. No zerg will put their all eggs in the ultra basket anymore because it doesn't put you in a great spot that worth the investment.
On October 24 2016 22:54 Aegwynn wrote: Do you remember the utter garbage hots ultras?
Even those wouldn't be so garbage against bio now. You have to remember they had to deal with HotS marauders. In HotS 3/3 marauders dealt 20 damage per attack to 6 armor ultras. A 3/3 LotV marauder deals 14 damage per attack to a 6 armor ultra. That's like 10 extra marauder shots to kill an ultra.
But Blizzard are planning to change so many things at once (tank damage, ultra armor, baneling health, liberator AA) that I think TvZ might change a lot. Again.
The problem with ultras always was that you can kite them forever. What did blizzard do? Make it so they cannot be reasonably killed so you would need to kite forever. (and drain more and more energy to heal because of stim) That's not a good fix.
On October 24 2016 18:15 rqPlan wrote: Say what you want, It's still a buff.
I doubt that +3 armor is meaningless so that everyone will stay at 4 armor.
There is a window and oportunity for the zerg with that buff. There are situations where this is a buff.
This is only a buff for that less than a minute time frame every game where the Terran is pushing and ultras are out but don't have plating yet.
And that minute is one of the worse parts about TvZ anyway. Gameplay that revolves about T hitting a timing like that sucks.
It's better if zerg has a better chance at surviving during that minute and Terran a better chance at winning afterwards.
Do you realize that timing won't exist anymore because there is no need to push since ultras are easy to deal with? Do you remember the utter garbage hots ultras? This will be just 1 armor above it, they will be ok vs bio but not that great. No zerg will put their all eggs in the ultra basket anymore because it doesn't put you in a great spot that worth the investment.
That 1 armor still makes a huge difference vs Marines and LotV Marauders will still be way weaker than in HotS. Ultras will still be worth it vs bio, if it's no longer enough to turn the tide, since T gets to far ahead in the midgame, then buff the midgame from zerg instead.
On October 24 2016 18:15 rqPlan wrote: Say what you want, It's still a buff.
I doubt that +3 armor is meaningless so that everyone will stay at 4 armor.
There is a window and oportunity for the zerg with that buff. There are situations where this is a buff.
This is only a buff for that less than a minute time frame every game where the Terran is pushing and ultras are out but don't have plating yet.
And that minute is one of the worse parts about TvZ anyway. Gameplay that revolves about T hitting a timing like that sucks.
It's better if zerg has a better chance at surviving during that minute and Terran a better chance at winning afterwards.
Do you realize that timing won't exist anymore because there is no need to push since ultras are easy to deal with? Do you remember the utter garbage hots ultras? This will be just 1 armor above it, they will be ok vs bio but not that great. No zerg will put their all eggs in the ultra basket anymore because it doesn't put you in a great spot that worth the investment.
That 1 armor still makes a huge difference vs Marines and LotV Marauders will still be way weaker than in HotS. Ultras will still be worth it vs bio, if it's no longer enough to turn the tide, since T gets to far ahead in the midgame, then buff the midgame from zerg instead.
yes that's what you need and get out of the fixed meta game of always the same 16marine drop into T favored mid into Z hides and prepares imba ultras and roll over T endgame its so repetitive, ultras also need to deal less damage but w/e ^^ these things can't just be done with small specific changes
All these years they worked towards making SC2 faster paced and more diverse. It would appear, they achieved that and as a result, the pros are telling them to slow down the game. I guess they went too far. Now they have to go back to HOTS without going back to HOTS. IMO the Twitch viewing figures give a clear indication about where people would rather see the game.
IMO the high frustration potential of SC2 that has chased off so many players is an effect of Blizz actually succeeding in creating diversity in the game. I don't think balance tweaks can be a solution to this problem. No matter what the pros think and say, you have to have a fun game to enable a wide fan base. This is not receiving as much attention as it should. But you have to start somewhere.
People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to nerf hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
On October 25 2016 03:53 jinjin5000 wrote: People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to need hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
tanks still wreck hydras on the test map and their speed off creep hasn't changed
On October 25 2016 03:53 jinjin5000 wrote: People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to need hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
tanks still wreck hydras on the test map and their speed off creep hasn't changed
Defensive tanks behind turret wall sure, but on open field, hydra trades extremely well against mech. That's without vipers.
+1 range does wonders. More than you'd think. I thought it would be like that but +1 range does so much for concave/spread
I can't comment on if you played test map or not but my experience on test map have been exactly that- pure hydra deals with stuff really well as long as its not choke point or behind heavy wall
On October 25 2016 03:53 jinjin5000 wrote: People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to need hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
tanks still wreck hydras on the test map and their speed off creep hasn't changed
On my eyes Jinjin has it right, Hydras on the test map atm are a very good tech path in order to deal with strong Tank based Mech, on spread out situations they deal very well cost efficiency wise vs Tank Lib based armies, same thing can't be said of Roach Ravager, who takes bonus dmg from Tank volleys and even when well microed can't reliably shoot down Liberators, and when T's place their armies set up around 3 siege tank stacks+libs+hellbats+a thor+some turrets RoachRav+Speedling simply does not cut it, the comp is DPS down before the damage of the roaches can really stack up, this coupled with the short roach range means that roaches even when pre-splitted tend to clump much harder than long ranged hydras. All of this is during Late-Midgame scenarios, on later stages Viper+Broodlord+Hydra heavy with light roachling support works very well dealing with Mech.
Frost is a quite fun map to play on when these comps are set, this is the direction I think Maps should at least partially go on, only with maybe allowing for easier 5th bases for the Mech player.
On October 25 2016 03:53 jinjin5000 wrote: People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to nerf hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
I'm pretty confident +1 range won't make it into the game or will be reverted pretty fast. not sure about zvt but in zvp it's definitely to good, the winrates will fall heavily into zergs favor.
On October 25 2016 04:56 K_osss wrote: Map design has is as big a factor on harassment as the unit design themselves.
Oh for sure, atm the mapmaking scene and lines of thought is on a very, very awkward place, which I hope I can go on further on these Blogs that I have been writing. Trying to design Maps for a StarCraft who on its future will experience such a strong change as to have stronger Siege Tanks who arguably might be the Top 2 unit which dictates Map Design+Not knowing what other ideas the DevTeam has regarding the future of map design+dealing with things like TLMC voting (which is being fixed now) and 1st stage judges who might cherry pick maps based on previous LotV experience that does not apply for such a strong change map wise because of SiegeTanks. Overall it all means that the mapmaking scene has it very tough regarding on if it is actually worth it to spend the time making maps at all, under the risk that the hundreds of hours you put in might get 100% wasted because one of those links missed the memo that the game is changing.
Anyhow, I personally see with this Tank Change sc2 maps going more towards BW based layouts regarding the lack of complex central map features that could be easily exploited by Mech comps and stronger tanks. Same thing with the 4/5th bases, and making them in such a way as to allow Mech/Toss/Zerg players hold them with a small amount of strong terrain controlling units, which is completely different than has been in the past.
On October 25 2016 03:53 jinjin5000 wrote: People don't seem to realize how insane +1 range and movement speed is for hydras.
I see people theory crafting roach hydra and how it will he weak glass cannon still but that +1range and speed makes it enough to forego other units and just go pure hydra to combat mech extremely cost effectively- sprinlkle in lung bane for midgame and viper late and broodlord viper ultra late and it's formidable to say the least
I think people will be hit with how strong it is once test map hits ladder. Since blizzard haven't mentioned it one bit in past few community feedback, I assume they are really unaware of it
Anyways, even if it may be strong imo, hydra should be core zerg unit, not the lame ass roach. If they are going to nerf hydra, I hope it doesn't touch the changes
I'm pretty confident +1 range won't make it into the game or will be reverted pretty fast. not sure about zvt but in zvp it's definitely to good, the winrates will fall heavily into zergs favor.
Imo changes I think should be made to highlight hydra based composition as main zerg comp rather than roaches. If they are going to nerf, it should be damage not others
Anyways, with current numbers, I can't seem to engage zerg outside of my own defensive wall. If I try to be aggressive without help of massive turret wall or production walls, I find myself getting crushed by concave hydra and need ravens against hydra- and vikings eventually against vipers and broodlord, which i can't really figure out how to deal with. Mass amount of para bomb is really hard to deal with even when split with small amount of hydra support
Hmm
I like the fact hydra is main army of zerg now after change but I don't like how I need raven to deal with it and consequently, para bomb damaging the said raven to deal with hydras. Oh well. We will see when the patch officially hits
Ik people will say l2split but parasitic bomb radius and stacking frankly is hard to deal with
It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
I like the change of Ultralisk, but only if Blizzard buffs Zerg midgame vs BIO Terran. If not- this will make impossible for Zerg to win. Let's imagine game like this- Terran makes standard 16 marine, 2 medivak push. Even if Zerg will defend it, this push set's him behind in economy. Terran has his third, massing bio. Now, for Zerg, the only chance is to survive till Ultras with plating, to push bio (with mines, tankivacks or libs) back. With that nerf to plating, which is effectively -1 to armour, Marines for example deal double the damage to ultras. If u think that's not enough, look what 3/3 bio ball does with 2/2 Ultra with plating. Ultras are not as invincible without 3 armour upgrade as u would think. They need full set of upgrades and plating upgrade to be our "imba ultras". Changing only this, and not giving Zerg some buffs in midgame is not really fair. ZvT vs BIO looks like this nowadays, because Zerg cannot compete with Terran in midgame. That's why he turtles to lategame. I don't like this either, and i like nerfing slightly ultras to make the game even in lategame scenario. But in that case. Blizzard should buff Zerg midgame. Hydra buff won't cut it as it's trash vs Bio (even without mines or tanks- and i assume tanks will be more common nowadays).
So Blizzard u want to make it fair? Give us back 4 larva to make our midgame more competetive. Since WOL, Zerg's only advantage over protoss and Terran was ability to set our economy fast and pump swarm. Remember that most of Zerg's units are weaker thatn T or P, have less micro potential. U MADE ZERG to be swarm. With nerfing Zerg's only cost effective composition in lategame, u must concider this change to- 4 larva or riot! I'm not kidding. With nerfed ultras, even with -1 armour, Zerg will be trash in midgame, and trash in lategame. Thanks David Kim...As always u listen to Terran whiners, not reason.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
While you guys are busy discussing ultra changes, i was wondering if im the only one concerned about the future we are going into?
Just read what they wrote:
"Regarding KR feedback: We’ve been seeing a lot of discussion from the KR community on two points: making the game easier, and toning down harassment so that the general pace of the game is slower".
So they stated obvious facts koreans and all sane people have been saying for ages aka "stop pretending its Moba, its an RTS", "leave this game alone", "look at the shrinking numbers (viewrship/playerbase)", "blizzard stop please what are doing" etc etc, these type of comments, you know. And as far as i recall DK mentioned this in his previous interview at DH or w/e (not long ago).
But then they try to debate that with the following reasoning (?) and it's the best part:
"Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2".
Like, is this considered sane/normal to make posts like this? Are they out of their minds or what? Because basically what they say is: we don't give a shit about what KR players think and won't even bother with explaing our position because we are right by default. because our main goal is to make the best gaem eva regardless of sales and playerbase.
I'll remind the audience one more time that the following factors accrued since LoTV release: - Playerbase shrinked by half (compared to 2015); - Twitch viewership numbers went down signifcantly; - Kespa terminated SC2 related operations.
All this partially due to DKs strive for a more fast paced game/more diversity/more harrasment/more units/more micro abilities... And instead of accepting their complete failure and adminting the incompetence, they shake it off with pathetic excuses like this. "Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase". Now they are martyrs, lead by a divine providence to make a best gaem, who don't care about popularity or public acceptance. Pathetic.
On October 25 2016 18:51 insitelol wrote: While you guys are busy discussing ultra changes, i was wondering if im the only one concerned about the future we are going into?
Just read what they wrote:
"Regarding KR feedback: We’ve been seeing a lot of discussion from the KR community on two points: making the game easier, and toning down harassment so that the general pace of the game is slower".
So they stated obvious facts koreans and all sane people have been saying for ages aka "stop pretending its Moba, its an RTS", "leave this game alone", "look at the shrinking numbers (viewrship/playerbase)", "blizzard stop please what are doing" etc etc, these type of comments, you know. And as far as i recall DK mentioned this in his previous interview at DH or w/e (not long ago).
But then they try to debate that with the following reasoning (?) and it's the best part:
"Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2".
Like, is this considered sane/normal to make posts like this? Are they out of their minds or what? Because basically what they say is: we don't give a shit about what KR players think and won't even bother with explaing our position because we are right by default. because our main goal is to make the best gaem eva regardless of sales and playerbase.
I'll remind the audience one more time that the following factors accrued since LoTV release: - Playerbase shrinked by half (compared to 2015); - Twitch viewership numbers went down signifcantly; - Kespa terminated SC2 related operations.
All this partially due to DKs strive for a more fast paced game/more diversity/more harrasment/more units/more micro abilities... And instead of accepting their complete failure and adminting the incompetence, they shake it off with pathetic excuses like this. "Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase". Now they are martyrs, lead by a divine providence to make a best gaem, who don't care about popularity or public acceptance. Pathetic.
I mean what can you do? Sc2 is getting older and it's in a genre that was once mainstream but is now niche. Sure ballance has not been stellar nor game design. But even if it was I don't think sc2 would be in substantially better shape in terms of player base. Sc2 is damn hard it can't have the same casual appeal as mobas or fps. Rts in general just has an inherently higher barrier to entry than these types of games. I think blizzard has tried very hard, harder than any of its costumers should have expected to keep this game going. And I appluad them for that. We as a community might just have to accept that there is only so much they can do to prop up the game. It might just be unable to apeal to a larger audience. I think the problems go deeper than just a few tweeks to gameplay. And frankly I think if blizzard made the changes the kr scene is asking them to make in hopes of increasing the player base they would have to dumb the game down enogh that a lot of hardcore players, those of us who have stuck it out since wol might finally lose interest.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Koreans go back to broodwar after SC2 for a reason. This is not about RTS being less popular than mobas. It is about people who by nature prefer to play RTS (minority) but still don't get satisfied with SC2 and switch to other games.
The goal is not to become bigger than the moba genre, it is about attracting people who naturally are dedicated to RTS.
Anyway this thread has quickly derailed to a biased balance fight about ultralisk armor again, which wont help the game go anywhere at all with all its narrow-mindedness.
This kind of thinking in fact prevented SC2 to become a better game. But people are still so blind that they would infinetely continue with that and if there were only 2 guys left playing SC2 they will continue to argue about ultralisk armour and wont move a bit from their position in defending their own race being the inferior one.
On October 25 2016 18:51 insitelol wrote: While you guys are busy discussing ultra changes, i was wondering if im the only one concerned about the future we are going into?
Just read what they wrote:
"Regarding KR feedback: We’ve been seeing a lot of discussion from the KR community on two points: making the game easier, and toning down harassment so that the general pace of the game is slower".
So they stated obvious facts koreans and all sane people have been saying for ages aka "stop pretending its Moba, its an RTS", "leave this game alone", "look at the shrinking numbers (viewrship/playerbase)", "blizzard stop please what are doing" etc etc, these type of comments, you know. And as far as i recall DK mentioned this in his previous interview at DH or w/e (not long ago).
But then they try to debate that with the following reasoning (?) and it's the best part:
"Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2".
Like, is this considered sane/normal to make posts like this? Are they out of their minds or what? Because basically what they say is: we don't give a shit about what KR players think and won't even bother with explaing our position because we are right by default. because our main goal is to make the best gaem eva regardless of sales and playerbase.
I'll remind the audience one more time that the following factors accrued since LoTV release: - Playerbase shrinked by half (compared to 2015); - Twitch viewership numbers went down signifcantly; - Kespa terminated SC2 related operations.
All this partially due to DKs strive for a more fast paced game/more diversity/more harrasment/more units/more micro abilities... And instead of accepting their complete failure and adminting the incompetence, they shake it off with pathetic excuses like this. "Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase". Now they are martyrs, lead by a divine providence to make a best gaem, who don't care about popularity or public acceptance. Pathetic.
I mean what can you do? Sc2 is getting older and it's in a genre that was once mainstream but is now niche. Sure ballance has not been stellar nor game design. But even if it was I don't think sc2 would be in substantially better shape in terms of player base. Sc2 is damn hard it can't have the same casual appeal as mobas or fps. Rts in general just has an inherently higher barrier to entry than these types of games. I think blizzard has tried very hard, harder than any of its costumers should have expected to keep this game going. And I appluad them for that. We as a community might just have to accept that there is only so much they can do to prop up the game. It might just be unable to apeal to a larger audience. I think the problems go deeper than just a few tweeks to gameplay. And frankly I think if blizzard made the changes the kr scene is asking them to make in hopes of increasing the player base they would have to dumb the game down enogh that a lot of hardcore players, those of us who have stuck it out since wol might finally lose interest.
I just don't get that kind of logic. "RTS is destined to die so w/e". Is that how a multibillion company plan and develop their games? HoTS had a playerbase of 350k players with NO signs of rapid falling. It's not a small number. Release of LotV brought it down to 150k. It clearly has to do a lot with blizzard approach to the game (i mentioned it all above). It's clear that blizzard is ruining the game. But all you can say is: "Oh, well, at least they tried, it's fine". If someone's bleeding out - just finish him? Rts is an old and niche genre, this is obvious. But it definitely could be sustained at a decent level. Noone dreams about LoL or Dota numbers, but clearly 150k (and falling) is not what this company is capable of.
You don't get that kind of logic cause it is not relevant. SC2 is not to become the one and only game on the market and kill mobas/cs but to stop disgusting hardcore RTS fans.
And the analysis that blizzard has done anything and failed and should be apploud to is wrong.
What about the general approach of less is more which they didn't follow at any time? Why always adding more stupid stuff instead of reducing the stupid stuff that exists? What about the buffs over nerfs thing? What about making everthing faster and faster? What about increasing instant win/lose scenarious instead of reducing them over the time? What about battles being deceided within few seconds with only little chance to make differences as as an excellent player? What about the whole mindset of "balance the game on prolevel and everything will be fine"?
They failed in their approaches and key notes and that is the reason for hc RTS fan departure.
As I have stated several times before the mindest could be like:
Is x vs y interaction fun/frustrating/punishing/rewarding. What can we do to help that? Not: Is it balanced on prolevel. Is it really necessary to implement more stupid things (nexus/pylon cannon, oracles, mutalisk regeneration, ravagers, 15 range cyclons, 20 range tempest, the whole liberator unit on its own, etc.) in a mindset of more is more or could we achieve things better in a mindset of less is more that would involve toning things down instead of implementing op units/mechanics against already existing op units to potentially balance that stupid shit out on prolevel? etc.
Another and arguably better way to diminish harassment damage, is to buff defenders advantage. That way strong harassment units still remain strong when you spread out and get to 5-6 bases. I love the action pack nature in LotV, but I do think the average game time is a bit too low, especially with current bo3, bo5, bo7 systems. Within the current game state a Blizzcon finals really should be a bo9.
On October 25 2016 19:56 LSN wrote: Koreans go back to broodwar after SC2 for a reason. This is not about RTS being less popular than mobas. It is about people who by nature prefer to play RTS (minority) but still don't get satisfied with SC2 and switch to other games.
The goal is not to become bigger than the moba genre, it is about attracting people who naturally are dedicated to RTS.
Anyway this thread has quickly derailed to a biased balance fight about ultralisk armor again, which wont help the game go anywhere at all with all its narrow-mindedness.
This kind of thinking in fact prevented SC2 to become a better game. But people are still so blind that they would infinetely continue with that and if there were only 2 guys left playing SC2 they will continue to argue about ultralisk armour and wont move a bit from their position in defending their own race being the inferior one.
I couldn't agree more. The whole "the RTS genre is dying" has become a scapegoat for every bad design decision made by Blizzard in SC2. The RTS genre won't be bigger than the MOBA or FPS genre, we all know that. But the point here is that a better designed game (like BW) would have made the scene much more sustainable and would retain a lot more players allowing the genre to stabilize in a much healthier state. It is that simple.
On October 25 2016 19:56 LSN wrote: Koreans go back to broodwar after SC2 for a reason. This is not about RTS being less popular than mobas. It is about people who by nature prefer to play RTS (minority) but still don't get satisfied with SC2 and switch to other games.
The goal is not to become bigger than the moba genre, it is about attracting people who naturally are dedicated to RTS.
Anyway this thread has quickly derailed to a biased balance fight about ultralisk armor again, which wont help the game go anywhere at all with all its narrow-mindedness.
This kind of thinking in fact prevented SC2 to become a better game. But people are still so blind that they would infinetely continue with that and if there were only 2 guys left playing SC2 they will continue to argue about ultralisk armour and wont move a bit from their position in defending their own race being the inferior one.
I couldn't agree more. The whole "the RTS genre is dying" has become a scapegoat for every bad design decision made by Blizzard in SC2. The RTS genre won't be bigger than the MOBA or FPS genre, we all know that. But the point here is that a better designed game (like BW) would have made the scene much more sustainable and would retain a lot more players allowing the genre to stabilize in a much healthier state. It is that simple.
Coop actually was a smart move in that regard. Attracting casual players without screwing multiplayer.
But yeah DK's vision for the game was : - "people are masturbating over KR APM and multitask. Let's increase this aspect of the game." - which led to "let's make everything binary and volatile in the game much stronger, while screwing the risk/reward ratio of worker harass" - which led to "no one wants to play a RTS that's volatile and where worker harass has no downside whatsoever" - which led to "pro are having troubles to get sponsored because no one plays the game and no one watches the game"
regarding "more is more" and "less is more" or "Is x vs y interaction fun/frustrating/punishing/rewarding. What can we do to help that?" ; a lot of it has to do with whether interactions are nuanced or not. Of course adding stupid stuff completely CUTS nuances in the game such as PO, even just one bad addition can totally destroy huge parts of the game. That's why whenever something is added or modified its interactions with every other things must be considered. that's one reason why too many hard counters or too hard counters, or volatile situations, or too fast battles or too gambly/all-inish/unstable strats or also that which is very fixed in strat structures are not fun or good : they break nuances. You can't engage as much tactical or strategic creativity or skill in it, it's more merely focused on a knowledge/control/speed check that would still be there anyway if the nuances were present. If you look at BW it has a lot more nuances in it without instability in pretty much all parts of the game, interactions between units, positionning, economic possibilities, build possibilities, results of attacking, defending etc. (not to say you don't find some rigidity like pvz opening you could say, but for example even the way that you start arbiter tech in pvt and how many arbiters you make and how you use them is very nuanced / not to mention you do have other choices (well carriers pretty much, which is also nuanced) ;; anyway personally I'm convinced an even better game than BW can be made ofc thats what I expect from SC2 or a new RTS etc)
The mutalisk regen is a perfect example btw. Mutalisk harrass should come at a price. The price that mutalisks will be damaged after the harrassment and can be used less optimal only after that for quite some time.
If you let them regenerate quickly this downside has no effect anymore and using them offensively is always the best option at any time you don't need them for defence. That alone reduces strategical depth big time and made SC2 so much of a worse game, it is unspeakable.
Now it is important to acknowledge cause and effect. And there you have to ask why did they get regeneration at the first place? And the clear reason was that in the TvZ metagame of overpowered bio play zerg needed such an overpowered harrassment unit so that they would be able to harrass at all without dying instantly to the counter push.
The correct solution was not to give muta regeneration but to widen things up and tone down bio. The problem here was that zerg had no sustainable unit against bio. Lings/banelings mostly die in the constant encounters and zerg would never get the chance to become offensive.
Now fill in the mine in that construct. Why the mine? Cause when zerg got an overwhelming mutalisk force nothing could stop these op mutalisks anymore at overrunning the terran, but mines could. No matter how good/fun/frustrating/punishing kind of interactions the mine creates, it could achieve this job.
Wrong. Terrans would need no op mines if zerg didn't have op mutas. And zerg didn't have op mutas if terran didn't have op tier 1 bio.
As you can see for me it makes only few sense to discuss LOTV focussed, carry all the issues of WOL and HOTS still and take them as a given. They are not.
Restore all the strategical depths and options that have been lost over the time due to implementation of stupid units/mechanics and SC2 can become a fulfilling game.
- P/O - Oracles - Tier 1 bio massing above everything else - ravagers - fenixes - mines - etc.
You're right for sure (and I agree with all examples you listed). That's why I have no hope of ever coming back to play a good SC2 modified by blizzard^^ We players or others can do it, but the problem lies in communication about the new version and getting people to play it etc, the community building aspect on the better game.
On the one hand it's amazing how bad an understanding of RTS the designer(s) of SC2 have. On the other hand I suspect it was done on purpose to make the game straightforward and keep luring casual players into a competitive money scene. I believe the OP bio was always a ploy to draw in the least dedicated players to have a straightforward tool to play with on a basic level, after coming out of the T campaign in WoL. I believe guys like Dustin Browder and Davik Kim are outright liars and obedient to a hierarchy that draws things out for business, marketing and financial reasons. They have created a disgusting example not quite deserving of the Starcraft name.
Yeah the muta regen was a pretty horrible idea. Actually both the regen and the speed buff were horrible ideas.
It's just like the tankivac : taking away the weakness that allows strength. Tank can have high dmg output because they're fucking bolted to the floor. Mutas can be extremely mobile because they're not that great in frontal situations and that when they take damage they have to regen for a long time. And regen even made them much better in frontal situations because dealing damage on a muta flock is useless, you have to KILL some amount of them to trade.
That's why thors are so fucking horrible against HOTS/LOTV mutas. Zergs won't stop killing your armory because the muta fock ate a javelin volley. As long as you get out after taking the second one, you dealt damage with NO DOWNSIDE. And that's where the mine come in. It's worth it because you'll always kill at least a muta.
Watching old Bomber vs DRG TvZ on WOL was so much more fun and much more interesting.
The community can't. Some individuals could. The community on average is on the notion to believe +1/-1 armour of ultralisks is the key thing to discuss. And this is being pushed by the demand of Blizzard that balance of the game on pro-level is the only maxim and fixes everything else.
It is almost at a gg no re status, you are right. Even the now taking place rebalance is all through hopeless if fundamental mistakes are being carried with it. It just wont succeed but shift problems elsewhere.
Yes @jack but that requires you to understand that a Terran game cannon evolve around building 10 barracks and pushing out rines/rauders 80% of the time as a valid win strategy at the first place. The mobility, sustainability and op damage of bio narrows down so many strategical counter-options so that the colossus and baneling meta had to exist which made the game boring above anything else.
You cannot give bio - max mobility with stim and medivacs - max dps - heal - remove the last downside vs armoured units through the existance of marauders and expect a fulfilling game to evolve around that.
LOTV has brought sc2 a lot of good things, especially coop. But the 1v1 ladder games are frustrating. Nathanias said people play more COOP than the multiplayer. Its good to see people still play the game, but it would be nice to see more 1v1 games as well. The player base dropped a lot and like said many times before, "rts is dying" is bs.
To me HOTS is still the best expansion, maybe tweaking a few things and the game would be amazing (f.e. the turrets of ravens, tempest supply) and the time to be able to micro your army and have great fights.
LOTV units dont feel right to me. Adepts that can be at 2 spots at once, hardly any cooldown and you have to wall off better vs toss than vs zerg. Liberators, especially with the range feels so wrong, disruptor balls that cant be dodged in many situations. Tankivacs, no need to talk even more about this (puke). Stasis ward, energy spell that doesnt expire. Nydus worms , 8 armor ultralisks, snipe with delay. the line when mines fire, pylons that kill your depots, ravager rushes and is the only unit in the game that can attack at a random spot, killing burrowed units, super fast ling drops and dont forget the reaper grenades, vipers with parasitic bomb that counters the counter. the list is big and i forget a lot of stuff. Fights can be over in an instant and if you didnt react in 4 femto seconds you are dead.
Yes, many many people will disagree and say: "the pro's dont have issues with it, all is fine" , "l2p" , "get a good buildorder" , "go play dota" etc.
Casuals buy the game, casuals like to watch the game they like on Twitch, casuals are the backbone of the support. Yes SC2 supposed to be hard, but lotv is made extra hard just for the sake of it. But its has become so hard due new units, faster gamespeed and eco that casuals are having insane difficulties. Even advanced players struggle and are more frustrated than before and because of that not playing/streaming much or at all anymore.
Therefor im glad Blizzard is changing the game a lot with the upcoming balance patch, removing tankivacs etc. Yet, there is so much "BS" left. F.e. the 19 range seeker missle, tempest with a spell. Just tweaking the tempest was enough, reducing range, speed or supply and it would be a fine unit. Parasitic bomb is instant, but the seeker is 19 range leash. I prefer an instant casted spell, but 19 range and you cant dodge it either so you have to split. and dont forget the "seeker the hellion and run it into the enemy" trick. Sure it will be "exciting" but it will be frustrating as well. Reduce the gimmicky spells, keep the game more honest and straight up, but the game is filled with BS since LOTV.
LOTV units are a sole consequence of carried over mistakes from WOL & HOTS, barely anything else. If you take them mistakes as a given they make sense to a certain degree and are well designed. If you don't it is a nonsense to take them into account when discussing SC2 in general.
OP adapts didn't even need to exist if massing bio as terran wasn't the key strategy (lol) at any matchup. The adept is the clear follower of the colossi. As colossi was boring they had to deliver something new. But the game will stay boring that way. It is simply shifting issues and making them less visible, not solving them. The same is true for the ravager, to give zerg something else than baneling/muta (which was taken away with the liberators anyway) to face bio with.
Ravagers are a frustrating unit as a) they require too much micro to be efficient at a constant level b) their biles don't hit anything anyway most of the time in higher level games and your efforts are wasted c) if they mass hit however in situations where the opponent cannot dodge them anymore become hopelessly overpowered.
This is the definition of frustrating gameplay. They render more or less useless (apart from their threatening factor) as long as the biles barely hit anything but require maximum amount of micro and care and become extremely op as soon as biles cannot be dodged anymore by the opponent. It is exactly the opposite of how it should be.
Well if you can follow me so far you might even understand why I claim that progamers by default cannot be the solution and the promise to fix SC2. They have to by default take things as a given and benefit from them, abuse what is given to them and cannot afford to think outside the box without decreasing their level of play (then they were no pros anymore by default mechanism).
That way SC2 was doomed to go where it is now. Blizzard requesting only top-level feedback could by default potentially make the game balanced but not necessarily good, and their own ideas where based solely on taking former decisions as a given.
And this even denies the game to become good as that might interrupt with balance first and then 80% of TL forums starts to go full retard about +1/-1 ultralisk armour or whatever it is then. However if you create good interactions and design first, the balance can take place later at any time - not the other way round.
It is disgusting how few people seem to understand these mechanics and how blizzard worked hand in hand with the TL community (not only that) to achieve the given state.
Also the popular views of only pro-gamers and high grandmasters should be able to voice their opinions here or elsewhere took their good part in that.
Recently there was this guy who suggested unlimited amount of MSC for protoss amongst a few other things. He claimed to have two accounts in korean GM league and is on rootgaming roster.
No offence (if you read that), I enjoyed some of the other proposals. But I could not identify at all if these suggestions came from a kor-GM leaguer or a platin EU/US player. There was no difference. It was pure thinking inside the box blizzard handed to you ("yeah unlimited MSC") and focussed onto the view of a protoss player - not taking other races into account or general benefit of the game. So where is the difference?
Why do noobs get flamed for the same proposals (unlimited amount of MSC) and pros/semi-pros don't or not as much? Why would pro/semi-pro opinions that voice such nonsense as unlimited MSC be more valuable than the opinion of any random noob out there?
Well don't get me wrong. I am overdoing it a bit the same way the focus on pro-level feedback is overdone here in the forums and from blizzard since years. Pro-feedback is important for their special insight and can contribute alot, just not at the state where SC2 is right now I guess.
I believe more people understand this stuff than appears, but many will refrain talking about it (publicly) if they are making any money from activity that depends on the game I would say understandably, and those who leave stop talking and may not even ever publicly leave a message. That's what I did when I left during the first months of WoL (yes it was already obvious), I never posted on TL or publicly, only talked to my friends. But you are right the solution is not just asking pros, it's about having a good design (and team) to begin with and then sure balance polish and fine tuning may be adjusted with top level feedback with careful and educated consideration. The method used here is mostly demagogic, misleading and destructive. I think it was Iloveoov who said something about that, comparing to wow. Also a good player is not necessarily a good designer (or a good designer a good player), that was briefly mentioned before though even by DK, it's not up to the players to imagine a good design for the game and even their feedback on balance may be off, observation and correct intents are most important, there can be many different possible ways to develop in good or bad directions, etc.
It reaches probably from the blizzard employee who doesn't dare to question formely decided things again over the casters/pro-players all the way towards to staff of e.g. Teamliquid.
When I said bio is too strong for a balanced SC2 3 years ago the very first time I was attacked by casters and pro-players on teamliquid in the balance discussion thread.
When I made the thread about why in detail feedback of pros isn't the thing that SC2 requires now to become more attractive and a better overall game guys like Waxangel from TL come into the thread and say it is a bad quality post.
And you know why that is? Cause it is questioning their status as the guys who know everything and see everything and have the solution for everything above everyone else.
In such environments you don't only lose players/fans but as well won't find correct solutions.
yep. In a hierarchical business pyramid some can be tempted to only reflect positivity or argue only within accepted boundaries so as to keep their status or climb^^ while forms of bribery or coercion may occur in the dark or not dark. haha this is a pyramid in ruins holding the monopole of modern RTS
On October 25 2016 22:23 ProMeTheus112 wrote: yep. In a hierarchical business pyramid some can be tempted to only reflect positivity or argue within accepted boundaries so as to keep their status or climb^^ while forms of bribery or coercion may occur in the dark or not dark. haha
That is due to relatively modern science the biggest source of failures within businesses and companies. But guess what: 95% of the guys here will never understand why and that.
Patterns like these are deceisive for if someone is good at certain things and not at others and what priorities and preferences one has.
TL community is not a primary factor for SC2, but a secondary. It could have served as a corrective for Blizzards mistakes (primary factor) but it didn't. Instead wrong flows were intensified.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Please remember that this is a group effort, and we’re all trying to make the game better by working together. Thanks as always and let’s continue working at it even though we know this isn’t easy!
Group effort? its been 11 months, you left a vacuum from the thor HIP removal, split anti air/ground vehicle uppgrades, raven flat nerfs, buffs to all z/p units including economy while doubling the pace of the game which means faster hive tech and air transition for protoss
Strelok, morrow, sjow, HTOmario, Happy, merz, Goody and among the koreans IMMVP, innovation, Sea, gumiho and every slayers player QUIT PLAYING MECH OR QUIT THE GAME OUTRIGHT
you are very much in the doghouse to us mr.kim you owe us a lot if you want people to play your game again, you ruined our mech communities, personalities and opportunity to win tournaments which has been economicly a disaster for full time pro players that played mech (korea)
the Thor is much more of a core option against air in testing.
The thor has never been a core option, its too clunky and succeptible to spells like neural/abduct, the unit is so slow it is 100% doomed if you lose a fight, you cant retreat and thus lose games whereas cyclones can escape, you should make cyclones anti armored with superior range and speed, but thors anti light with superior splash damage so players can play a fast paced game or a macrogame, you are forcing turtling with this rhetoric.
Thors battle Mutalisks in a different way: they need to be in position to really get strong damage against Mutalisks trying to fly in, which is more fitting for the Mech fantasy.
Mech fantasy?! we are fitting a square peg in a round hole for five years and now you are patronising us despite you having to nerf ravens and split air/ground vehicle dmg uppgrades as a countermeasure because you felt mech was too successful?
im sorry but this is fuel for the fire that mech is not a legitimate style which it naturally isnt since you artificially killed it in LOTV, we are trying to provide feedback and cooperate but its hard when we are apparantly chasing dreams and fantasies? sure thing, ok.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t increase the current effectiveness of the new Cyclone’s AA capabilities as long as it isn’t the main AA option throughout the whole game. We feel that there could be room here to increase its effectiveness, and we’ll start testing out some numbers as per your suggestion.
Just make the lock on automatic, nobody is ever going to use your manual lock on for 10dps against carriers/broods with like 70-100dps, or remove the lockon system and make it like the marine shooting ground and air.
For the Tempest, we would like to ask you guys to help us out on testing this ability against heavy Siege Tank based compositions and Hydra/Lurker based armies.
Protoss does not need tempest to handle siege tanks or hydra/lurker armies, this unit was implemented to tacle swarmhost spore forests and now the unit acts as an anti capitol ship kiting unit, its great for PvP and PvT vs battlecruisers and does NOT need a place against mech, protoss is doing FINE with their current ground units, stop trying to choke mech in its crib and let protoss players show you how "strong" mech is even without going air first.
In regards to harassment, we agree that some cases feel like it’s too much right now. We feel that we’ve taken a pass at the units that seem to have pushed this too much, such as: Adepts, Warp Prisms, and Tankivacs.
A pass? you only reverted siege tank drop, you buffed queens/spores so they could deal with protoss harassment and terran mid/lategame while doing nothing about the reaper grenade, invincible nydus or adept shades which should all be targetable or removed as they induce anxiety and frustrate the players ALWAYS derailing the game from being a tug of war into being a pain threshold game, you should revert warp prism range and t1 zerg drops in the least, the game feels horrible compared to HOTS due to it.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
Well i dunno maybe i just played bad players. But the most important thing i'd say is not to get tricked into building cyclones, they're worthless and a huge waste of money
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
Well i dunno maybe i just played bad players. But the most important thing i'd say is not to get tricked into building cyclones, they're worthless and a huge waste of money
I've been playing against my friends and consensus seems to be hydra is preeeety good
Yea cyclones are decent early game to get 1-2 for map control and light haras but other than that, fairly worthless. It is fairly cancer in tvt and early tvp though
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote:
On October 25 2016 10:53 JackONeill wrote: It's good to look at the ultra, but the armor isn't the reason it's broken in any way.
Transfuses and queen snowball throughout the game is the reason. Zerg late game units can't be too powerfull because of queens. Broodlords can't be buffed because of queens. Ultras can't be too strong because of queens. The AA range buff made it even more cancerous since you can't shoot with queens at vikings from under BLs.
I fail to see how when terran start to play defensive and turtly with mech it's the end of the world, but zerg having to litterally camp all game long while massing queens to have unkillable ultras it's fine.
Regarding the hydra, i've played the test map quite a lot and it really feels fine against mech.
No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
Well i dunno maybe i just played bad players. But the most important thing i'd say is not to get tricked into building cyclones, they're worthless and a huge waste of money
I've been playing against my friends and consensus seems to be hydra is preeeety good
Yea cyclones are decent early game to get 1-2 for map control and light haras but other than that, fairly worthless. It is fairly cancer in tvt and early tvp though
How are your tvp going?
Nah man you don't wanna build cyclones even to take map control in TvZ, they're SO BAD. The only case where they're good is against roach comps, which every zerg who played the test map more than twice knows not to build in TvZ.
In TvP, I've not played since the patch where the disruption sphere got cut, so before that the tempest was so fucking op i played a GM that just did mass phenix into tempest and there was absolutely nothing i could do. Now with the stun i don't really know, as long as the cyclone still sucks at AA i'm sure that mass stuns will completely break any attempt to go mech. Having an AoE ability on the tempest is so insanely stupid i still can't believe it made it past "internal testing" (rofl)
On October 25 2016 11:53 jinjin5000 wrote: [quote]
Aggressive mech timings seem to not really work once hydralisks are out
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
On October 25 2016 15:49 eviltomahawk wrote: [quote] No, armor is the reason Ultras have been tipped into being nearly broken. They weren't as much of a problem in HotS.
On equal upgrades, Marines went from dealing 3 damage to Ultras with Chitinous Plating to now dealing just 1 damage. Marauders went from dealing 17 to 20 damage to now only dealing 10 damage.on equal upgrades against Ultras with Chitinous Plating. That's a severe drop in attack damage against Ultras. Ultras are three times as durable against Marines and nearly twice as durable against Marauders. That's not a subtle change.
The proposed balance change is a good step in the right direction between the HotS and LotV values for Ultra armor. Marines will deal 2 damage against them, and Marauders will deal 12 damage. It's mostly the Marauder attack change to two projectiles that's hampering their effectiveness against Ultralisks.
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
Well i dunno maybe i just played bad players. But the most important thing i'd say is not to get tricked into building cyclones, they're worthless and a huge waste of money
I've been playing against my friends and consensus seems to be hydra is preeeety good
Yea cyclones are decent early game to get 1-2 for map control and light haras but other than that, fairly worthless. It is fairly cancer in tvt and early tvp though
How are your tvp going?
Nah man you don't wanna build cyclones even to take map control in TvZ, they're SO BAD. The only case where they're good is against roach comps, which every zerg who played the test map more than twice knows not to build in TvZ.
In TvP, I've not played since the patch where the disruption sphere got cut, so before that the tempest was so fucking op i played a GM that just did mass phenix into tempest and there was absolutely nothing i could do. Now with the stun i don't really know, as long as the cyclone still sucks at AA i'm sure that mass stuns will completely break any attempt to go mech. Having an AoE ability on the tempest is so insanely stupid i still can't believe it made it past "internal testing" (rofl)
I build 2 to just poke around and take down misc stuff fast like stray queen or spine in middle of forming. It's pretty safe to build one
I'm not so sure about tvp. If you go mech, your primary counter is archon immortal chargelot which doesn't really take much damage from tanks and since it's lotv, protoss economy is faster than terran so they will be taking initiative. I'm not so sure if tank hellbat mine can handle mass amount of gateway+triple robo+ adept harass that well since ou will be behind on supply on top of tempest stuns...
I guess turtling to bc is best bet but those take even longer than carriers
Early cyclone is pretty strong so maybe that can be used to delay protoss 3rd while you get tank count up?
On October 25 2016 19:45 JackONeill wrote: [quote]
Depends on how the game played out. If the guy went for speedling straight into hydras on 3 bases and you went for an enormous tank/BF hellion push, you're gonna destroy him. On the other hand, if he went for roaches => hydras, yeah it's gonna be hard not to get kited and eventually die to a concave.
But that's fair i suppose.
Vipers are the real reason why agressive mech gets completely terrible the moment T3 hits.
[quote]
That has very little to do with armor, but a lot to do with marauder having split attacks. And you're missing the point : it's absolutely fine to have ultras be very good against bio. It's one of LOTV's main perk/achievement. However, the terrible design of queen snowball mass transfuse makes the 8 armor ultra OP. The fact that zerg can/has to camp on 3 bases with 10 queens and rush ultras to perma heal them is the main reason why the matchup is so stupid.
If transfuse was 75 energy, queens could only heal twice in a row, instead of four. It'd make queens supported ultra deathballs much weaker, and would make ultra strategies much weaker on very low eco.
Not really because we'll split hydra handles hellbat tank with limg bane support well until vipers come out
I don't think so, but we'll see what the pros do once the test map is integrated to the game. Splitted hydras only work where you can take a concave and any mech push is about abusing a position somehow. Especially since the test map tanks will 2 shot hydras with +1 regardless of their armor upgrade.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Medivac boost => muta regen, and muta regen + medivac boost = photon overcharge. I don't think we ever needed these in SC2.
Are you sure? I am having quite a lot of trouble vs pure hydra skipping roach with ling bane support. I find that I can't quite deal with the long range ad it being able to kite and delay to viper if necessary
At what level are you playing? (not trying to bash, just to have a better understanding)
I play at high masters level and anytime you play against a ling based composition with mech you can't really attack frontally like a brute because you're just gonna get surrounded and crushed. Wether it's mutas or hydras behind it. You have to pull him out of position with liberators, drops or banshees. Then, you can take a position that allows you to shell one of his bases, forcing him to engage into your setup. If the guy uses lings and/or banes, go for 4 factories with 2 reactors and pump out mines. Mine/tanks are good because he won't be able to detonate them with stray lings, and you'll be able to have drilling claws very quickly. Keep some hellbats close to your tanks to avoid wacky surrounds, and when the zerg engages the mines will blow up most of the lings and banes, while the tanks finish them off. From there it's only hydras vs tanks hellbats, which doesn't work.
Same rank but I've been having lot more trouble vs hydra than you apparently
Well i dunno maybe i just played bad players. But the most important thing i'd say is not to get tricked into building cyclones, they're worthless and a huge waste of money
I've been playing against my friends and consensus seems to be hydra is preeeety good
Yea cyclones are decent early game to get 1-2 for map control and light haras but other than that, fairly worthless. It is fairly cancer in tvt and early tvp though
How are your tvp going?
Nah man you don't wanna build cyclones even to take map control in TvZ, they're SO BAD. The only case where they're good is against roach comps, which every zerg who played the test map more than twice knows not to build in TvZ.
In TvP, I've not played since the patch where the disruption sphere got cut, so before that the tempest was so fucking op i played a GM that just did mass phenix into tempest and there was absolutely nothing i could do. Now with the stun i don't really know, as long as the cyclone still sucks at AA i'm sure that mass stuns will completely break any attempt to go mech. Having an AoE ability on the tempest is so insanely stupid i still can't believe it made it past "internal testing" (rofl)
I build 2 to just poke around and take down misc stuff fast like stray queen or spine in middle of forming. It's pretty safe to build one
I'm not so sure about tvp. If you go mech, your primary counter is archon immortal chargelot which doesn't really take much damage from tanks and since it's lotv, protoss economy is faster than terran so they will be taking initiative. I'm not so sure if tank hellbat mine can handle mass amount of gateway+triple robo+ adept harass that well since ou will be behind on supply on top of tempest stuns...
I guess turtling to bc is best bet but those take even longer than carriers
Early cyclone is pretty strong so maybe that can be used to delay protoss 3rd while you get tank count up?
Wow, i guess we play very differently because i'm always glad whenever a protoss decides to go ground against mech. Because you can build liberators instead of massing vikings, which forces a decent amount of stalkers, which are destroyed by tanks/cyclones/mines/thors/hellbats. Thors do pretty well against every ground unit, and i feel like the new tank really punishes any positionnal error from protoss.
New cyclone is decent against protoss, especially with medivacs to drop around. And if he starts building stalkers you're rubbing your hands together "yeah, build them stalkers and go blink yeaaah" because you know they get destroyed by everything you'll be building later.
However, phenix openers completely destroy mech. Not only do they prevent any kind of frontal attack, but they also are very good at harass. Then protoss goes straight into tempest, and because of superior economy you can't really catch up with thors and vikings and end up loosing to a 6 bases protoss with canons everywhere when you're barely starting to mine your fourth. The only counter i found to this was to never stop building reactored marines and go for a 3 bases push with like 20 unstimmed and unupgraded marines just to snipe phenixes lifting your stuff, because you can't really have the 15 viking flock or the 5 thor stack that really punishes it. And mines are actually horrible against phenixes because he'll simply fly over your army and the detonations will hurt you more than him.
Please remember that this is a group effort, and we’re all trying to make the game better by working together. Thanks as always and let’s continue working at it even though we know this isn’t easy!
Group effort? its been 11 months, you left a vacuum from the thor HIP removal, split anti air/ground vehicle uppgrades, raven flat nerfs, buffs to all z/p units including economy while doubling the pace of the game which means faster hive tech and air transition for protoss
Strelok, morrow, sjow, HTOmario, Happy, merz, Goody and among the koreans IMMVP, innovation, Sea, gumiho and every slayers player QUIT PLAYING MECH OR QUIT THE GAME OUTRIGHT
you are very much in the doghouse to us mr.kim you owe us a lot if you want people to play your game again, you ruined our mech communities, personalities and opportunity to win tournaments which has been economicly a disaster for full time pro players that played mech (korea)
the Thor is much more of a core option against air in testing.
The thor has never been a core option, its too clunky and succeptible to spells like neural/abduct, the unit is so slow it is 100% doomed if you lose a fight, you cant retreat and thus lose games whereas cyclones can escape, you should make cyclones anti armored with superior range and speed, but thors anti light with superior splash damage so players can play a fast paced game or a macrogame, you are forcing turtling with this rhetoric.
Thors battle Mutalisks in a different way: they need to be in position to really get strong damage against Mutalisks trying to fly in, which is more fitting for the Mech fantasy.
Mech fantasy?! we are fitting a square peg in a round hole for five years and now you are patronising us despite you having to nerf ravens and split air/ground vehicle dmg uppgrades as a countermeasure because you felt mech was too successful?
im sorry but this is fuel for the fire that mech is not a legitimate style which it naturally isnt since you artificially killed it in LOTV, we are trying to provide feedback and cooperate but its hard when we are apparantly chasing dreams and fantasies? sure thing, ok.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t increase the current effectiveness of the new Cyclone’s AA capabilities as long as it isn’t the main AA option throughout the whole game. We feel that there could be room here to increase its effectiveness, and we’ll start testing out some numbers as per your suggestion.
Just make the lock on automatic, nobody is ever going to use your manual lock on for 10dps against carriers/broods with like 70-100dps, or remove the lockon system and make it like the marine shooting ground and air.
For the Tempest, we would like to ask you guys to help us out on testing this ability against heavy Siege Tank based compositions and Hydra/Lurker based armies.
Protoss does not need tempest to handle siege tanks or hydra/lurker armies, this unit was implemented to tacle swarmhost spore forests and now the unit acts as an anti capitol ship kiting unit, its great for PvP and PvT vs battlecruisers and does NOT need a place against mech, protoss is doing FINE with their current ground units, stop trying to choke mech in its crib and let protoss players show you how "strong" mech is even without going air first.
In regards to harassment, we agree that some cases feel like it’s too much right now. We feel that we’ve taken a pass at the units that seem to have pushed this too much, such as: Adepts, Warp Prisms, and Tankivacs.
A pass? you only reverted siege tank drop, you buffed queens/spores so they could deal with protoss harassment and terran mid/lategame while doing nothing about the reaper grenade, invincible nydus or adept shades which should all be targetable or removed as they induce anxiety and frustrate the players ALWAYS derailing the game from being a tug of war into being a pain threshold game, you should revert warp prism range and t1 zerg drops in the least, the game feels horrible compared to HOTS due to it.
Gumiho hasn't quit and was using mech as recently as last week in the Olimoleague. Edit: I should say successfully using mech.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
On October 26 2016 01:35 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like i'm obligated to remind u all that muta speed buff and regen was directly an answer to medivak boost.
Muta regen was an answer to widow mines.
Because mutas getting oneshotted by mines need regen of course.
On October 26 2016 10:26 AnossSc2 wrote: Hey guys,
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
nice vid Anoss, lots of interesting points and good analysis overall, though the diagnosis seems quite grim : sc2 just missed a step and it will be extremely hard to recover from it, if even possible. I agree the focus should have shifted away from balance a long time ago, but constant whining in the community didn't help.
On October 26 2016 10:26 AnossSc2 wrote: Hey guys,
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
Nice vid, really have to agree on your stance regarding the economy change at the start of the game, 12 harvester change really limited early game options and also the comfort zone players had considering a strategy (also mind games with super early worker scouts etc.), sadly they chose to "improve" the downtime during the first minutes into the game to comfort viewers - which in the end doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they may have hoped.
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
On October 26 2016 10:26 AnossSc2 wrote: Hey guys,
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
Nice vid, really have to agree on your stance regarding the economy change at the start of the game, 12 harvester change really limited early game options and also the comfort zone players had considering a strategy (also mind games with super early worker scouts etc.), sadly they chose to "improve" the downtime during the first minutes into the game to comfort viewers - which in the end doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they may have hoped.
yea cant agree more, always thought it was a bad idea to worry about making the game a great "esport": rather than a great game it self, and let the esports side work it self out. because when you worry about "esport" you need to worry about the viewers to keep eyes on the game which is why they switched to 12 workers to kill the down time which killed so much of the strategy from the game like you said. which kill the player base or atleast helped killl it in which lead to less viewers.
the reason other games have more viewers is because they have a great games and good design and dont worry about the esport/viewership. because when you have a great game people will watch. bw wasnt meant to be a esport cs wasnt meant to be an esport quake, wc3 and other good games werent ment to be esports they were great games that people loved to play and compete in. and when you have a good game with high level game play people will watch and enjoy it and then comes to esports. This IMO is the reason for sc2 "death" not just the 12 workers but blizzard worrying about viewers and how flashy the game is rather than making a great game. sorry went on a rant but i have felt this way forever now and figured it say it since Im sure this is sc2 last leg. hope im wrong but w.e.
On October 26 2016 10:26 AnossSc2 wrote: Hey guys,
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
Nice vid, really have to agree on your stance regarding the economy change at the start of the game, 12 harvester change really limited early game options and also the comfort zone players had considering a strategy (also mind games with super early worker scouts etc.), sadly they chose to "improve" the downtime during the first minutes into the game to comfort viewers - which in the end doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they may have hoped.
yea cant agree more, always thought it was a bad idea to worry about making the game a great "esport": rather than a great game it self, and let the esports side work it self out. because when you worry about "esport" you need to worry about the viewers to keep eyes on the game which is why they switched to 12 workers to kill the down time which killed so much of the strategy from the game like you said. which kill the player base or atleast helped killl it in which lead to less viewers.
the reason other games have more viewers is because they have a great games and good design and dont worry about the esport/viewership. because when you have a great game people will watch. bw wasnt meant to be a esport cs wasnt meant to be an esport quake, wc3 and other good games werent ment to be esports they were great games that people loved to play and compete in. and when you have a good game with high level game play people will watch and enjoy it and then comes to esports. This IMO is the reason for sc2 "death" not just the 12 workers but blizzard worrying about viewers and how flashy the game is rather than making a great game. sorry went on a rant but i have felt this way forever now and figured it say it since Im sure this is sc2 last leg. hope im wrong but w.e.
one last thing I cant wait for like 10 years for all the angry nerds who were dissapointed with sc2 to create there vision of an rts that they feel sc2 couldve be or what it shouldve been. and not just the sc2 aracde things like starbow. it will happen im sure rts isnt dead its just waiting for its time moba is king rts will be back.
On October 26 2016 10:26 AnossSc2 wrote: Hey guys,
I made a video to try to understand why Starcraft 2 does not work anymore, then this game is excellent.
I added English subtitles to gather the opinion of everyone, the French community has appreciated the video, I wonder if this is the case for everyone, because if we are all agreed , maybe we can change things and make Starcraft 2 while his interest.
Nice vid, really have to agree on your stance regarding the economy change at the start of the game, 12 harvester change really limited early game options and also the comfort zone players had considering a strategy (also mind games with super early worker scouts etc.), sadly they chose to "improve" the downtime during the first minutes into the game to comfort viewers - which in the end doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they may have hoped.
yea cant agree more, always thought it was a bad idea to worry about making the game a great "esport": rather than a great game it self, and let the esports side work it self out. because when you worry about "esport" you need to worry about the viewers to keep eyes on the game which is why they switched to 12 workers to kill the down time which killed so much of the strategy from the game like you said. which kill the player base or atleast helped killl it in which lead to less viewers.
the reason other games have more viewers is because they have a great games and good design and dont worry about the esport/viewership. because when you have a great game people will watch. bw wasnt meant to be a esport cs wasnt meant to be an esport quake, wc3 and other good games werent ment to be esports they were great games that people loved to play and compete in. and when you have a good game with high level game play people will watch and enjoy it and then comes to esports. This IMO is the reason for sc2 "death" not just the 12 workers but blizzard worrying about viewers and how flashy the game is rather than making a great game. sorry went on a rant but i have felt this way forever now and figured it say it since Im sure this is sc2 last leg. hope im wrong but w.e.
one last thing I cant wait for like 10 years for all the angry nerds who were dissapointed with sc2 to create there vision of an rts that they feel sc2 couldve be or what it shouldve been. and not just the sc2 aracde things like starbow. it will happen im sure rts isnt dead its just waiting for its time moba is king rts will be back.
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
so long as I don't have to buy anything (I have only WoL), I'd be up for working on smtg like this with a little team ; for the fun of it and see what we can make while keeping some of the base essence ideas that are good (such as warp or expanding creep or addon switches ?).
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
Actually not every single unit. Hellbats and lurkers added something good to the game, for instance.
But if you look at it closely, early HOTS ideas weren't that bad. Oracle being a caster that forcefielded minerals, the "shredder" which was a mine designed to control large areas but couldn't be activated with friendly units in it. Those were innovative and interesting in design. But nah, oracle got out as a steroided banshee and the widow mine is the most frustrating unit for non terran players.
I can perfectly imagine the widow mine not being able to target workers, or that instead of shooting one big missile it deals a constant amount of damage to units that stay in its range. I can perfectly imagine the oracle being able to forcefielding minerals, BUT having to be immobile on top of the mineral line for 2 secs to cast the spell (therefore static D would prevent that) and that the forcedfields would have 75 hps and 20 secs duration.
The units that were added in HOTS and LOTV could easily be made much more interesting and less punishing.
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
Actually not every single unit. Hellbats and lurkers added something good to the game, for instance.
But if you look at it closely, early HOTS ideas weren't that bad. Oracle being a caster that forcefielded minerals, the "shredder" which was a mine designed to control large areas but couldn't be activated with friendly units in it. Those were innovative and interesting in design. But nah, oracle got out as a steroided banshee and the widow mine is the most frustrating unit for non terran players.
I can perfectly imagine the widow mine not being able to target workers, or that instead of shooting one big missile it deals a constant amount of damage to units that stay in its range. I can perfectly imagine the oracle being able to forcefielding minerals, BUT having to be immobile on top of the mineral line for 2 secs to cast the spell (therefore static D would prevent that) and that the forcedfields would have 75 hps and 20 secs duration.
The units that were added in HOTS and LOTV could easily be made much more interesting and less punishing.
loved the replicant ?
I agree initial design ideas were far better : tempests to combat muta packs, oracles keeping minerals from being mined. But I stand by my point : you didn't need widow mines, you didn't need oracles, you didn't need lurkers. You could make an excellent game with WoL units and some changes (warpgate change, maybe FFs with hitpoints, some buff to the WoL ultra, projectile fungal, etc), probably a far better game than LotV will ever be now that we committed to oracles, swarm hosts etc.
On October 22 2016 04:00 Musicus wrote: ... Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2. ... Please remember that this is a group effort, and we’re all trying to make the game better by working together. Thanks as always and let’s continue working at it even though we know this isn’t easy!
I find this part in particular a very interesting feedback. Totally love it.
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
Actually not every single unit. Hellbats and lurkers added something good to the game, for instance.
But if you look at it closely, early HOTS ideas weren't that bad. Oracle being a caster that forcefielded minerals, the "shredder" which was a mine designed to control large areas but couldn't be activated with friendly units in it. Those were innovative and interesting in design. But nah, oracle got out as a steroided banshee and the widow mine is the most frustrating unit for non terran players.
I can perfectly imagine the widow mine not being able to target workers, or that instead of shooting one big missile it deals a constant amount of damage to units that stay in its range. I can perfectly imagine the oracle being able to forcefielding minerals, BUT having to be immobile on top of the mineral line for 2 secs to cast the spell (therefore static D would prevent that) and that the forcedfields would have 75 hps and 20 secs duration.
The units that were added in HOTS and LOTV could easily be made much more interesting and less punishing.
loved the replicant ?
I agree initial design ideas were far better : tempests to combat muta packs, oracles keeping minerals from being mined. But I stand by my point : you didn't need widow mines, you didn't need oracles, you didn't need lurkers. You could make an excellent game with WoL units and some changes (warpgate change, maybe FFs with hitpoints, some buff to the WoL ultra, projectile fungal, etc), probably a far better game than LotV will ever be now that we committed to oracles, swarm hosts etc.
I don't really agree as some units really fill roles that races lacked a lot. Zerg's unreliable AoE => lurker Zerg's unability to break sieges => SH, ravager, viper (horrible fails i agree, but the idea still stands) Terran's inability to withstand mass chargelots without kitting across the map or turtling really hard => hellbat/mines Terran's lack of mech AA => cyclone Protoss' stargate tech viability => oracle Protoss' legitimate (in WOL) lack of ability to take a third and stretch out defenses => MSC (horrible fail)
But some units just don't make sense i agree : Tempest => fills the role of the void ray (AA air fighter that focuses big threats) once it got nerfed into the ground, but ends up being each and every time the ultimate massable BS unit that breaks the game no matter how you try to counter it (i don't get how the tempest stayed as it is in the game since every single matchup that goes past the 15th minute ends up into protoss mindlessly massing tempest) Viper => lategame toolbox that's too clumsy to survive... just like the infestor. Cyclone => finally does his job in the game, but blizz wants to change it for it not to fill his role and be pointless SH => no purpose whatsoever in fact Oracle => just a banshee coupled with an observer MSC => i won't even start or i won't finish
On October 28 2016 22:10 AssyrianKing wrote: They need to go back to start of WoL and fix it from there.
yeah changes I'd make to WoL : remove zealot charge (give speed upgrade and no dancing attack moves? ), remove marauder concussive shells, remove baneling or baneling hits single target, remove spawn larva, economy system with decreasing growth as you increase probe count on a base (up to 3 per mineral and consequently less than *2 minerals for 2 workers on a mineral that is a clearly better economy system for starcraft allowing more choices nuances and differenciations between races), maybe no gold bases? (that never worked great did it?), less tension for using scan (less money from mules probably), make creep give regen instead of speed (so as not to make relationships between Z units and others radically different on and off creep), creep tumors much harder to kill but spread slower?, make colo a 1 target unit ala void ray? or just less damage? remove?, less/no forcefields rework sentry or remove, move warpgate tech mid/late game, broodlord less damage or no broodlings (primary role obstruction?), strong tanks, marines&M cant move and shoot, no clumping pathing, bit increased collision, smaller maps? (more map presence both for bases and army movement and positioning), more defender advantage (high ground advantage and units can't move and shoot as much), generally less emphasis on hard counters, roach and hydra 1 supply and cheaper and weaker, less damage for units accross the board, battles last much longer, less spells, harass neither mandatory or game ending in most cases (killing workers more like 1 at a time and slower, even a DT might kill workers only in 2 hits, give more life to workers, now we may be talking improvement on BW instead of opposite)..... and many others, probably remove and add units, define new styles, Z makes more hatches larva more precious gains advantage from mining off more bases with less workers no imba "T3" has advantage of numbers (flexible) economy and mobility, T doesn't revolve only around medivac drops has flexibility in tech without imba bio positional with some vulnerability in movement, stronger base P units stable and solid can't burst as much but if not outnumbered very cost efficient with warp advantage..
who would actually be interested in something like that ? Working from start with WoL set of units, bringing only the changes that made sense and try to see what it yields ? I've been saying for a while that every new unit (from HotS and LotV alike) was a disaster ; bad, unnecessary or redundant (when not all of that ; when not straight harmful for the game).
Actually not every single unit. Hellbats and lurkers added something good to the game, for instance.
But if you look at it closely, early HOTS ideas weren't that bad. Oracle being a caster that forcefielded minerals, the "shredder" which was a mine designed to control large areas but couldn't be activated with friendly units in it. Those were innovative and interesting in design. But nah, oracle got out as a steroided banshee and the widow mine is the most frustrating unit for non terran players.
I can perfectly imagine the widow mine not being able to target workers, or that instead of shooting one big missile it deals a constant amount of damage to units that stay in its range. I can perfectly imagine the oracle being able to forcefielding minerals, BUT having to be immobile on top of the mineral line for 2 secs to cast the spell (therefore static D would prevent that) and that the forcedfields would have 75 hps and 20 secs duration.
The units that were added in HOTS and LOTV could easily be made much more interesting and less punishing.
loved the replicant ?
I agree initial design ideas were far better : tempests to combat muta packs, oracles keeping minerals from being mined. But I stand by my point : you didn't need widow mines, you didn't need oracles, you didn't need lurkers. You could make an excellent game with WoL units and some changes (warpgate change, maybe FFs with hitpoints, some buff to the WoL ultra, projectile fungal, etc), probably a far better game than LotV will ever be now that we committed to oracles, swarm hosts etc.
I don't really agree as some units really fill roles that races lacked a lot. Zerg's unreliable AoE => lurker Zerg's unability to break sieges => SH, ravager, viper (horrible fails i agree, but the idea still stands) Terran's inability to withstand mass chargelots without kitting across the map or turtling really hard => hellbat/mines Terran's lack of mech AA => cyclone Protoss' stargate tech viability => oracle Protoss' legitimate (in WOL) lack of ability to take a third and stretch out defenses => MSC (horrible fail)
But some units just don't make sense i agree : Tempest => fills the role of the void ray (AA air fighter that focuses big threats) once it got nerfed into the ground, but ends up being each and every time the ultimate massable BS unit that breaks the game no matter how you try to counter it (i don't get how the tempest stayed as it is in the game since every single matchup that goes past the 15th minute ends up into protoss mindlessly massing tempest) Viper => lategame toolbox that's too clumsy to survive... just like the infestor. Cyclone => finally does his job in the game, but blizz wants to change it for it not to fill his role and be pointless SH => no purpose whatsoever in fact Oracle => just a banshee coupled with an observer MSC => i won't even start or i won't finish
thing is the fact that races were "incomplete" in WoL (Z couldn't siege, stargate wasn't viable as an opening, mech has bad AA) was GOOD. If everything is complete and styles/races have no weaknesses / specificities the game is dry, dull and plain uninteresting. There should be weaknesses / incompletenesses you have to get around to exploit the strengths of your race / style ; they should have never even tried to fill (at least some of) those roles if you ask me.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
I'm sure, many (pros) who went back were happy to find the game they enjoy better as well as "make more money" if they do!
TL saw the writing on the wall years ago and reacted correctly.
