|
Posted on behalf of Lead Multiplayer Designer David 'Dayvie' Kim:
Next Balance Update
We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps.
Interestingly, the balance of the current game looked better than expected in the first major tournament. This is the other reason why we decided we can take slightly more time before making next moves.
Let’s continue discussing, playing, and watching for not just where these two units currently are but also keep an eye out for if Hydralisks need a small HP increase, if Infestor burrow casting needs to be changed a bit, and if cyclones are in a good spot for Mech play. We also hear the concern that Reaper grenades might be powerful once the maps are changed to Season 1 maps, and if this is really the case when the maps go in, we’ll try to react quickly.
Balance Process going forward into next year
The other thing we wanted to discuss is the fact that the faster turn-around for smaller balance changes (during balance testing as well as during the off season) turned out much better than we had expected. Therefore, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to our balance process.
Our thought was to make a change so that if there’s a higher confidence on a smaller balance tweak that needs to be made, we can just push that change out to the live game without doing a balance test map. Keep in mind though that if there’s a big change happening or if we need to make a riskier change, we would use the balance test map to test the changes well before going live.
The reason we suggest this is so that we can be a bit more agile in fixing more balance problems that may arise in the future at a much faster rate. Please let us know your thoughts.
Wrapping up this year
Because this might be the last update of this year, we wanted to take the time to thank everyone once again for working so hard with us throughout maintaining the balance of the live game, working together on the major patch changes, as well as putting extra effort into polishing the game since the patch launch. We know that identifying specific improvements or issues with games is very difficult and can be frustrating at times, but we were so impressed by how much our community as a whole has improved throughout the year. This gives us the confidence that SC2 will continue to be improved next year, and we look forward to working closely together with you next year as well! Happy Holidays and here’s to a great New Year!!
|
if Infestor burrow casting needs to be changed a bit
yes
Reaper grenades might be powerful
yes
|
I agree with making faster and smaller balance changes.
I agree that reaper grenades and carriers are too good.
Lowering the interceptor cost from 25 to 5 was unnecessary, Carriers were already strong. The only reason we did not see Carriers pre-patch is that it was impossible to play mech in TvP.
Now when mech is actually somewhat viable in TvP even they old Carriers are a strong counter. Lowering the interceptor cost was unnecessary and simply moved the unit from strong to OP.
I am surprised that you have not increased the cost of Swarm Hosts yet. Swarm Hosts are completely broken in TvZ vs mech, it basically prevents you from even moving out on the map.
Just because Innovation managed to do some timing attacks before Swarm Hosts were out does not mean that the unit is not broken.
Mech will never be viable outside of cheese and timing attacks until Swarm Hosts are nerfed.
|
On December 21 2016 04:27 Charoisaur wrote:yes yes
Yes.
Someone should organize a bo13 paladino terminal TvZ showmatch to see exactly how good 3-rax reapers are.
|
Agree with all of the above. It seems hydras are really hard to balance. In ZvP there is basically a window where they are extremely powerful, and then in the late game they are utterly useless.
|
Balance Process going forward into next year
The other thing we wanted to discuss is the fact that the faster turn-around for smaller balance changes (during balance testing as well as during the off season) turned out much better than we had expected. Therefore, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to our balance process.
Our thought was to make a change so that if there’s a higher confidence on a smaller balance tweak that needs to be made, we can just push that change out to the live game without doing a balance test map. Keep in mind though that if there’s a big change happening or if we need to make a riskier change, we would use the balance test map to test the changes well before going live.
good idea.
experiment with this approach and see if it works. a small/tiny balance tweak requires a lot of game play to determine if it produced the expected change in game play. i suspect not enough people are using the balance test map so it becomes a chicken//egg thing as far as getting meaningful testing data.
|
Balance Process going forward into next year
The other thing we wanted to discuss is the fact that the faster turn-around for smaller balance changes (during balance testing as well as during the off season) turned out much better than we had expected. Therefore, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to our balance process.
Our thought was to make a change so that if there’s a higher confidence on a smaller balance tweak that needs to be made, we can just push that change out to the live game without doing a balance test map. Keep in mind though that if there’s a big change happening or if we need to make a riskier change, we would use the balance test map to test the changes well before going live.
The reason we suggest this is so that we can be a bit more agile in fixing more balance problems that may arise in the future at a much faster rate. Please let us know your thoughts.
Completely agree, no need to go through the entire process and to add to that. There isn't going to be enough people queue'ing the test map to see how a 5 hp Baneling HP decrease pans out. Zergs don't want to go in and play a nerfed race of itself. Test map should be for the really huge patches and crazy ideas.
Hydralisk: Straight up buffing the Hydralisks health will make it a more well rounded unit. This is quite a different change from the +1 increase in range. A health buff is not gonna matter that much in what is now considered a healthy unit compositions. The Hydralisk is currently a glass cannon and benefits from having tanking Roaches (Ultralisks late game,) in front of it. It benefits from having Bile's + Banelings, since it will make the enemy move around it's army in an attempt to dodge big AoE, hence reducing the damage from the opposing player. A straight up health pool buff will push out some of these importances and instead be replaced by the Hydralisk. So my fear is that we see less diverse unit compositions from the Zerg in general, though it will probably still not be overpowered.
I wonder if instead it would be a better idea to introduce a late game Hunter Killer Hydralisk upgrade on Hive tech, which buffs the Hydralisk health pool by an even greater amount than what is currently being suggested and that way we see Zerg compositions change more over time. Hydralisk could look really bad ass when they upgrade into the Hunter Killer Hydralisk :D
Reaper: For the Reaper I think they should remove Combat Healing and buff it's Health pool accordingly, then for pure awesomeness they should add a late game upgrade, which makes the Grenade do additional devastating damage vs Structures. Qxc late game Reapers were so awesome and it should totally be a thing!
Baneling: Banelings should be 35 hp from the start of the game. This does not destroy ZvZ, so there's no reason for it to be on the upgrade anymore.
Cyclone: Give it range 4, but add in turret tracking. Give it an upgrade which buffs the Lock-On. My suggestion would be an upgrade to the acquiring range of Lock-On.
Infestor: Burrow Fungal should not be a thing, either change it's functionality while Burrowed, so that it casts Fungal ontop of itself, or completely remove the ability to Fungal while Burrowed. You can instead buff Infested Terran Egg armour, if you want to give the Infestor more love.
|
david kim is so clueless. he's balancing everything ass backwards. he nerfs immortals, buffs tanks beyond anyone's wildest dreams, then wonders why all protosss are going air against mech? maybe because fighting it with ground units is horribly ineffective?
basically he's bouncing from one mistake to another, and then tries to fix it by making more mistakes. sc2 must be the only game that gets worse and worse the more the devs tune it and release expansions for.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 21 2016 04:49 MockHamill wrote:
I agree with making faster and smaller balance changes.
I agree that reaper grenades and carriers are too good.
Lowering the interceptor cost from 25 to 5 was unnecessary, Carriers were already strong. The only reason we did not see Carriers pre-patch is that it was impossible to play mech in TvP.
Now when mech is actually somewhat viable in TvP even they old Carriers are a strong counter. Lowering the interceptor cost was unnecessary and simply moved the unit from strong to OP.
I am surprised that you have not increased the cost of Swarm Hosts yet. Swarm Hosts are completely broken in TvZ vs mech, it basically prevents you from even moving out on the map.
Just because Innovation managed to do some timing attacks before Swarm Hosts were out does not mean that the unit is not broken.
Mech will never be viable outside of cheese and timing attacks until Swarm Hosts are nerfed.
This is all so true, pretty much sums up how I feel completely. Carriers are totally overpowered right now even against Zerg, they absolutely annihilate anything outside of mass 3/3 Viper/Corruptor/Queen and even with that composition your micro and engagements have to absolutely perfect.
Once again, the team continues with the overwhelming power of massed air units which I think beyond obvious design changes (Swarm Hosts just need to be removed and Hydras need less damage and more durability) is the biggest problem in the game, mass aerial armies are just much too powerful and it creates boring games because the only thing that counters powerful air units is powerful dedicated AA units.
As you said, they finally got mech into a decent spot and then they made the Swarm host quite literally ONLY good vs mech (Just like Vipers) and also like you said, they made Carriers which were already strong and particularly strong vs mech into an OP hard counter.
|
On December 21 2016 04:51 mindjames wrote:
Agree with all of the above. It seems hydras are really hard to balance. In ZvP there is basically a window where they are extremely powerful, and then in the late game they are utterly useless.
The window is because they do extremely powerful sustained DPS, so before Protoss can get out the necessary units to counter them Hydralisks in mass just apply the beat down to basic Gateway units.
The problem with this is that since they are so fragile, the necessary units to counter them are pretty much hard counters that as you said makes them useless and Protoss has a plethora of them. Colossus, Templar, Chargelot Archon, Skytoss, all handily annihilate Hydralisk armies, but before those units come out, Protoss struggles.
This can be fixed by reducing the attack speed so they don't totally incinerate basic units and buffing their health so that splash damage isn't so ludicrously effective vs them.
|
No changes to economy yet?
|
The day of the Blizzcon finale was an amazing, fast paced games. I really think that the game was well tuned for the final. I didnt think it was nessecary to announce a big patch annoucement in that sofa.
Seems like a snowball effect, everything was pretty good, eh? Then removeing big things, for examle tank/medivacs drops.
|
Also they should look into nerfing the collossus and compensate toss somewhere else to make pvt fun again.
|
Not a single word about swarmhosts.
|
So, we heard your ideas on making the carrier both usable in most games, and much less binary- but we're ignoring it and moving on? And we hear that reaper grenades are too strong, but we're not going to address that in the time of the year we set aside for balance changes? Wouldn't want to mess with the off-season meta?
|
On December 21 2016 05:24 SlammerSC2 wrote:
Not a single word about swarmhosts.
Its frustrating for sure.
|
I'm pretty sure someone has kidnapped David Kim. Actually acknowledging the community's main complaints, that isn't like him at all.
On December 21 2016 04:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 04:27 Charoisaur wrote:if Infestor burrow casting needs to be changed a bit yes Reaper grenades might be powerful yes Yes. Someone should organize a bo13 paladino terminal TvZ showmatch to see exactly how good 3-rax reapers are.
You don't even need to do that, just watch any of Kelazhur or uThermal's TvZ's for the last 4 months
|
reaper nades, add an upgrade in techlab cost 50/50 time 60 sec for them or something like that, they're only strong when there's a lot of them at very early stage and no problems when just 1-3.
|
On December 21 2016 05:18 Espartaquen wrote:
No changes to economy yet?
what's wrong with it?
|
Promising feedback.
I would love to see a nerf for the infestor even if I play Zerg. Don't delete the burrow casting ability because it's fun to play and really enjoyable to watch (especially when the casters are the O'Gaming crew) but a range nerf could be good. Zergs could still play this strats but it would be more risky and easier to prevent for the opponent.
|
Revert interceptors to $25.
|
On December 21 2016 05:01 xyzz wrote:
david kim is so clueless. he's balancing everything ass backwards. he nerfs immortals, buffs tanks beyond anyone's wildest dreams, then wonders why all protosss are going air against mech? maybe because fighting it with ground units is horribly ineffective?
basically he's bouncing from one mistake to another, and then tries to fix it by making more mistakes. sc2 must be the only game that gets worse and worse the more the devs tune it and release expansions for.
Don't play then. Otherwise, no really cares for your rants. They don't help.
|
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game.
|
On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game.
I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated.
I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha
|
it still hurts my soul that we somehow came to the conclusion that mass air should be viable
|
Am I going crazy, or did overlords have priority over drones before patch aswell?
Just really messed myself up going back to base, trying to build buildings, having to unselect the overlords first.
|
Nothing about swarmhost? Re-buffing hydras for no reason because they don't recognize it's not hydras being bad it's air units such as carriers and tempests being too powerful?
Interceptors should be 25 minerals, carriers are freewin status atm.
Yeh...it's over 1 year and invulnerable nydus worm is still in the game. Pretty speechless. Just going to be blunt - they need to hire a lead balance dev that has a better vision and grip on their game. Or hire someone that can play all 3 races at masters/gm level to get better perspective.
When is the last time dkim has played a game of SC2? I am not asking this question to be mean i just have zero faith the guy actually plays the game anymore at any decent level. And while you don't necessarily need to play the game you're a dev of to be knowledgeable about it...
...I've seen that the Heroes balance devs and Overwatch balance devs seem to PLAY the games they balance or be WAY more in touch with the problems and frustrating aspects of those games and they are patched relatively quicker.
Something is not adding up with the way frustrating game mechanics like reaper grenades, tankivacs, and invincible nydus worms are kept in the game since launch...
|
On December 21 2016 07:20 avilo wrote:
Nothing about swarmhost? Re-buffing hydras for no reason because they don't recognize it's not hydras being bad it's air units such as carriers and tempests being too powerful?
Interceptors should be 25 minerals, carriers are freewin status atm.
Yeh...it's over 1 year and invulnerable nydus worm is still in the game. Pretty speechless. Just going to be blunt - they need to hire a lead balance dev that has a better vision and grip on their game. Or hire someone that can play all 3 races at masters/gm level to get better perspective.
When is the last time dkim has played a game of SC2? I am not asking this question to be mean i just have zero faith the guy actually plays the game anymore at any decent level. And while you don't necessarily need to play the game you're a dev of to be knowledgeable about it...
...I've seen that the Heroes balance devs and Overwatch balance devs seem to PLAY the games they balance or be WAY more in touch with the problems and frustrating aspects of those games and they are patched relatively quicker.
Something is not adding up with the way frustrating game mechanics like reaper grenades, tankivacs, and invincible nydus worms are kept in the game since launch...
Can someone get rid of this for me as a present for xmas and 2017 wish? If he is clueless than you can directly be his brother because your vision of the game is to hop on ladder and see the winning screen in 2 seconds 
|
|
|
Does this mean starcraft 2 will be balanced infinite times?
I feel like the extreme end of where this is going is that every unit will be the same cause if anything is considered a bit stronger than their counterparts they must be nerfed and anything not played enough must be buffed.
|
Remove Thor, insert Goliath.
Please.
|
I don't understand why you ask to revert interceptors to 25minerals..
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
- 5min is too low, I agree
- why not a middle ground?? 10min?15min? why should we either go too low or too high? Carriers are COOL units, I want to see them more in the game !
A part from this, I really like the approach of small changes, from the last IEM tournament I think the game is in a very nice state
And if you want to have a laugh you can just tune to Avilo stream and see him play toss/zerg to show they are imbalanced, and lose to mech terran, it's pretty sweet 
|
Carriers are COOL units, I want to see them more in the game !
Are carriers cool because they work well in sc2 or because bw made the unit iconic and it worked there?
TLO already said it:
|
On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- 5min is too low, I agree
- why not a middle ground?? 10min?15min? why should we either go too low or too high? Carriers are COOL units, I want
They changed it already to 10min....
|
They are cool (IMHO of course) because they are iconic and the protoss capital ship
They also are very peculiar air units, with the interceptor mechanics
I am no progamer of course
|
On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts.
Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway.
|
On December 21 2016 07:55 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- 5min is too low, I agree
- why not a middle ground?? 10min?15min? why should we either go too low or too high? Carriers are COOL units, I want They changed it already to 10min....
Yeah. That 5 mineral increase made a HUGE difference. Now, when you queue up 20 interceptors, you build one less zealot.
|
Carriers are way more fun than Tempests at least. I don't like rushing to Carriers on low base count, but adding them in late game feels very right to me.
|
I think carriers deal damage too fast in SC2, like hydras and other things
|
On December 21 2016 07:20 avilo wrote:
When is the last time dkim has played a game of SC2? I am not asking this question to be mean i just have zero faith the guy actually plays the game anymore at any decent level. And while you don't necessarily need to play the game you're a dev of to be knowledgeable about it....
Honestly, also not to be mean or to bomb on David Kim needlessly but I would really appreciate David at the very least bringing in a team of 2 - 3 GM Random players (granted theres probably only 2 or 3 of them that exist) because they would be the only non biased party to gather balance and design data.
At this point it's obvious that David is not a high level player, and while you don't HAVE to be a high level player, it certainly can't hurt or anything, most of Kim's balance propositions are inelegant and band aid at absolute best and that's me trying to phrase it in the nicest way possible.
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
|
Hmm. I just played the game for the first time since a very long time. I played ZvT against a player of similar skill. I played Marine/Marauder/Mine/Medivac and pushed his 4th base, I managed to kill it - but he had Ultralisks out. 1/3 Ultralisks without the Upgrade vs. 2/2 MM. I lost this battle incredibly hard although I fought off creep, did a decent job in spreading and kept my production going.
What I want to express is: Ultralisks feel very strong and I know that their numbers have been tweaked a lot with LotV. I hope this gets adressed in the big patch that was announced.
Then again: I played one single game. I am by no means an expert or anything  .
|
On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway.
Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable..
and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise
At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ...
If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me
|
I kind of disagree with the faster balance changes. Don't nerf a unit out of existence just because people flame about it for the first month before figuring out how to play against it. Sc is a skill game, and skill takes time to develop.
Otherwise good points.
|
On December 21 2016 09:15 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me
The problem is that the carrier seems to be an a move unit atm. It's not all that interesting to watch the gameplay. You have to fix that, there needs to be a massive efficiency gap between Stats using carriers and some random master player using carriers.
I am only talking about the actual usage here, not how to get there, etc.
|
On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game
|
On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game
Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything he posts it is ignorant.
He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which lets you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him)
|
On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him)
avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while.
|
On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while.
It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous.
But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices.
Nathanias made a good point here:
Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc)
|
On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc)
Making the game "fun" is a laudable goal, but the community has neither the ability nor the power nor the will to do so.
|
On December 21 2016 11:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Making the game "fun" is a laudable goal, but the community has neither the ability nor the power to do so.
The community has the power to voice their opinion on design decisions which might be bad for the fun part.
If blizzard listens? Who knows. But atm it's mostly talking about balance here and balance there. Is the carrier too strong? Probably. The more interesting point of discussion would be: Even if it would be perfectly balanced, would it be fun to use/play against ? Almost nobody is trying to come from that direction though, which is sad imo.
It's also the reason people don't talk about other things anymore, because pros don't use it or it isn't in the current meta. So yes you are right that people have no power over the actual game, but TL is a discussion forum and the more productive/interesting discussion would be design/how to make the game fun/satisfying to play instead of trying to argue about balance which is never going to be perfect anyway (because perfect balance is only achieved when we get closer to mirror matchups)
|
On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc)
Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game.
We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to.
Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around?
All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league?
|
I don't know... it seems that we might have a "bit" too much fast changes these days... though I do certainly agree with tuning burrowed infestors, hydras, carriers, and reaper grenades... so what am I to say...
|
On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which lets you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him)
I stand by my original statement
|
On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway.
"Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff."
Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol
|
On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol
Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did.
|
On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha
Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you:
You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way.
Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons
You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
|
On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:I don't understand why you ask to revert interceptors to 25minerals.. - carriers were NEVER used before the patch - 5min is too low, I agree - why not a middle ground?? 10min?15min? why should we either go too low or too high? Carriers are COOL units, I want to see them more in the game ! A part from this, I really like the approach of small changes, from the last IEM tournament I think the game is in a very nice state And if you want to have a laugh you can just tune to Avilo stream and see him play toss/zerg to show they are imbalanced, and lose to mech terran, it's pretty sweet
This, nuff said
|
On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did.
Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about?
|
On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about?
There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall.
|
On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall.
Robotics Bay: Warp Prism HP has been reduced, immortal drops aren't really a thing and one can't just say "I'm going robo!" besides, if a protoss scouts two gases in a terran base early in the game the toss MUST open robo to get an observer and be ready for any kind of banshee, cyclone, widow mine, liberator or any other shenanigans a terran might be cooking up. Twilight council doesn't carry into the lategame, ever tried walking blink stalkers or glaived adepts into a siege tank line? Not a good idea. Stargate: in the last post you JUST said that even though Carriers weren't used that doesn't imply that there should have been a buff, alright fair enough, but what do you expect to build out of stargates if carriers aren't a good option? Mass void rays? That might work in bronze league, doubt it'll work in Diamond. Carriers got a needed buff, maybe too much? Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean that because people can't adapt to this new carrier play (which was never seen since brood war) the carrier should be tossed again into the void of forgotten units.
|
the further people get away from the very top notch playing level the more they must accept that the game will not be perfectly balanced. Certain players refuse to accept this reality and so they yell and scream and throw headsets around the room.
i love to play terran, and yet at 125 APM i'm better with a different race with almost no practice. probably i'm losing 5% or 10% of the time to people i am "more skilled and knowledgeable" than when i play T. so what? its not that big a deal. if i reacted like some people i'd talk about it like David Kim just napalmed a primary school for disabled children.
i've simply accepted that a diverse race RTS game will never be perfectly balanced for players below the top level. with that attitude i've had fun for more than 15 years playing Brood War, RA2, CoH1, RA3, and now SC2.
|
protoss still cancer to play. blizzard refuses to even address that it is a problem
|
On December 21 2016 06:07 PtyBisKuit wrote:
Promising feedback.
I would love to see a nerf for the infestor even if I play Zerg. Don't delete the burrow casting ability because it's fun to play and really enjoyable to watch (especially when the casters are the O'Gaming crew) but a range nerf could be good. Zergs could still play this strats but it would be more risky and easier to prevent for the opponent.
Idk if I agree with this, off all the things to balance, I don't think this is op. You just need to get an observer.
Also I really liked the sentiment at the end, and the invitation for feedback on their process of updates and how quickly they implement them.
And this community after all these years, even with the attention they still give this game and some really good adjustments to the game... remains an extremely bitchy complaint oriented community.
It's like it's in your blood at this point, do something to change, it just poisons the environment. I know it's not even something people think about, it's automatic and habitual.
Try to just enjoy life with a great game.
|
Just remove armored tag from stalkers and you can have your hydra hp buff, borrowed fungal and terran in the game.
|
I'd like to see the Hydralisk use a different attack against air units. I think it'd be easier to balance it that way.
The infestor certainly needs a change. I think it should reveal itself when casting and/or have a cast delay.
|
On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
THIS ONE: "You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way."
Hahahaha, meanwhile, terran players whine about Ultralisks which are tier 3 unit, that they cannot kill it easy with tier1 Marines and marauders.
What are u talking about? Hydra is tier 2, Carrier is tier 3- Hydra vs Carrier one on one- hydra always will loose :-) So it's not stronger.
Hydra however gets their strentgh in numbers- as almost every Zerg unit. 25 hydras for example should kill 5 carriers. The problem is when they don't. Your arguments are just bad. I could revert this into- Stalker is tier 2 unit, Broodlord is tier 3 or 3.5 and still 20 stalkers kill 5 broodlords- is this imba? No it's not. Stop being biased.
|
I would also like to say, that Infestors burrowed casting is not the problem. The problem is that Terrans REFUSE since 2010, making Raven when going BIO. I mean, i don't understand. Every race has to make observers when there is suspicion of cloaked units in enemy's army composition. I can agree that for Zerg it's easy with morphing overseer, but for example Protoss can make observers. Why can't Terrans? It's because they are biased about same playstyle since 2010- MMM ftw. I don't understand what problem Avilo has with burrowed infestors, as he spams turrets everywhere anyway.
In current meta, Zerg needs strong midgame caster. And Infesotr is fine. Especially that it's easy counterable with simple thing- making detector. Without Infestor it would be a dead unit, i think probably the most nerfed trough years from whole game. Infestor is fine. Stop freaking bashing every good thing that Zerg has. Infestor change is basically the only buffed thing for Z in this new patch that left. Everything else was reverted or nerfed.
|
On December 21 2016 11:26 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league?
That was always obvious. Mech is horrible for the game. Especially the Avilo style mech. That guy hasn't proactively engaged the opponent in his entire life. A vast majority of his games consists of him sieging tanks in front of his base and building missile turrets and command centers. He unsieges his tanks when he floats a CC to the next expansion. Once he has half the map and the opponent has suicided all of his units into the tank lines, Avilo has won. Woopdiedoo, we're so glad mech is viable. If the opponent refuses to suicide units, and starts building for example a massive carrier army, Avilo rages for 30 minutes straight about balance. He's also not only a bad loser, he's a disgustingly bad winner. He flames his opponents when he wins nearly every time.
As far as Avilo as a games designer, I've never heard a more laughable thing in my life. Seriously the most biased and obnoxious twitch personality out there, who lives with his mum, sleeps in a bunk bed with no sheets, can't present a clear and concise argument, doesn't acknowledge any of his faults, blames all of his losses on maphacks and stream cheating, would in someone's opinion make a good part of a design team at a real games company? For SC2's sake I'm glad that person who suggested that isn't recruiting. In fact I suspect he's unemployed just like Avilo is, because anyone who works with real people in an office would know what types of people can be productive members of a team.
|
On December 21 2016 16:52 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:26 xTJx wrote:On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league? That was always obvious. Mech is horrible for the game. Especially the Avilo style mech. That guy hasn't proactively engaged the opponent in his entire life. A vast majority of his games consists of him sieging tanks in front of his base and building missile turrets and command centers. He unsieges his tanks when he floats a CC to the next expansion. Once he has half the map and the opponent has suicided all of his units into the tank lines, Avilo has won. Woopdiedoo, we're so glad mech is viable. If the opponent refuses to suicide units, and starts building for example a massive carrier army, Avilo rages for 30 minutes straight about balance. He's also not only a bad loser, he's a disgustingly bad winner. He flames his opponents when he wins nearly every time. As far as Avilo as a games designer, I've never heard a more laughable thing in my life. Seriously the most biased and obnoxious twitch personality out there, who lives with his mum, sleeps in a bunk bed with no sheets, can't present a clear and concise argument, doesn't acknowledge any of his faults, blames all of his losses on maphacks and stream cheating, would in someone's opinion make a good part of a design team at a real games company? For SC2's sake I'm glad that person who suggested that isn't recruiting. In fact I suspect he's unemployed just like Avilo is, because anyone who works with real people in an office would know what types of people can be productive members of a team.
As much as I dislike Avilo sc2 persona, and i disagree with his views on the game design I feel that flaming his personal life man is too much. Not cool man, not cool.
|
Btw, nerf queens air range, remove liberator range upgrade.
|
Compared to Tempests and VRs for sure they are more interesting. I'm not a fan of air units being so good, but i'd rather watch Carriers then 15/10 range tempests kiting from a screen away.
|
We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps.
I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran.
In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that?
I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back.
I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others...
Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!!
User was warned for this post
|
On December 21 2016 04:58 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +Balance Process going forward into next year
The other thing we wanted to discuss is the fact that the faster turn-around for smaller balance changes (during balance testing as well as during the off season) turned out much better than we had expected. Therefore, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to our balance process.
Our thought was to make a change so that if there’s a higher confidence on a smaller balance tweak that needs to be made, we can just push that change out to the live game without doing a balance test map. Keep in mind though that if there’s a big change happening or if we need to make a riskier change, we would use the balance test map to test the changes well before going live.
The reason we suggest this is so that we can be a bit more agile in fixing more balance problems that may arise in the future at a much faster rate. Please let us know your thoughts. Completely agree, no need to go through the entire process and to add to that. There isn't going to be enough people queue'ing the test map to see how a 5 hp Baneling HP decrease pans out. Zergs don't want to go in and play a nerfed race of itself. Test map should be for the really huge patches and crazy ideas. Hydralisk: Straight up buffing the Hydralisks health will make it a more well rounded unit. This is quite a different change from the +1 increase in range. A health buff is not gonna matter that much in what is now considered a healthy unit compositions. The Hydralisk is currently a glass cannon and benefits from having tanking Roaches (Ultralisks late game,) in front of it. It benefits from having Bile's + Banelings, since it will make the enemy move around it's army in an attempt to dodge big AoE, hence reducing the damage from the opposing player. A straight up health pool buff will push out some of these importances and instead be replaced by the Hydralisk. So my fear is that we see less diverse unit compositions from the Zerg in general, though it will probably still not be overpowered. I wonder if instead it would be a better idea to introduce a late game Hunter Killer Hydralisk upgrade on Hive tech, which buffs the Hydralisk health pool by an even greater amount than what is currently being suggested and that way we see Zerg compositions change more over time. Hydralisk could look really bad ass when they upgrade into the Hunter Killer Hydralisk :D Reaper: For the Reaper I think they should remove Combat Healing and buff it's Health pool accordingly, then for pure awesomeness they should add a late game upgrade, which makes the Grenade do additional devastating damage vs Structures. Qxc late game Reapers were so awesome and it should totally be a thing! Baneling: Banelings should be 35 hp from the start of the game. This does not destroy ZvZ, so there's no reason for it to be on the upgrade anymore. Cyclone: Give it range 4, but add in turret tracking. Give it an upgrade which buffs the Lock-On. My suggestion would be an upgrade to the acquiring range of Lock-On. Infestor: Burrow Fungal should not be a thing, either change it's functionality while Burrowed, so that it casts Fungal ontop of itself, or completely remove the ability to Fungal while Burrowed. You can instead buff Infested Terran Egg armour, if you want to give the Infestor more love.
Just wanna say that I love the idea of a hive tech Hunter Killer upgrade! That sounds so cool.
|
On December 21 2016 16:31 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic. THIS ONE: "You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way." Hahahaha, meanwhile, terran players whine about Ultralisks which are tier 3 unit, that they cannot kill it easy with tier1 Marines and marauders. What are u talking about? Hydra is tier 2, Carrier is tier 3- Hydra vs Carrier one on one- hydra always will loose :-) So it's not stronger. Hydra however gets their strentgh in numbers- as almost every Zerg unit. 25 hydras for example should kill 5 carriers. The problem is when they don't. Your arguments are just bad. I could revert this into- Stalker is tier 2 unit, Broodlord is tier 3 or 3.5 and still 20 stalkers kill 5 broodlords- is this imba? No it's not. Stop being biased.
Don't know what stalker you've been playing against... Stalkers kill brood lords? Since when? Broodlords outrange stalkers, have a meat shield in front of them and by the time the stalker gets into range to fire at the brood lord it's already dead.
25 hydras should beat 5 carriers? They do beat 5 carriers, with a bit of focus fire 5 carriers die to 25 hydras. Is it a close fight? Yes, but the cost of 5 carriers and 25 hydras is also pretty close, so it makes sense, don't know what the point is.
And here there are peoole whining about the fact that 200/200 hydras don't beat a full 200/200 protoss fleet by amoving into the protoss.
What you said about the ultralisk is true: terran players whined that their dinky little marines couldn't beat ultras and sure enough they got their nerf, it is the same story for the colossus though
|
On December 21 2016 19:18 _Croc wrote:Show nested quote +We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps. I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran. In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that? I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back. I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others... Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!!
What the hell was that.
Btw. The proper spelling is: Suka Blyat'!
|
|
|
On December 21 2016 04:24 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Source if Hydralisks need a small HP increase, if Infestor burrow casting needs to be changed a bit, and if cyclones are in a good spot for Mech play !! [/center]
I like the idea of an hydralisk upgrade after Hive tech too, their midgame is actually strong enougth (old buff range +1 has broken the mid game imo)
Infestors burrow cast change a bit OK. It looks irritating to lose every bio units in a mass fungal
Cyclones are in a good spot foor mech play ??? A factory can produce more than three times a barrack do.. Roach build have no chance against Terran and Mech will be the most often answer now it s easy to play..........
If you will to balance things, balance the BIO against the MECH power, nobody will take risk to play bio if there s MECH is a lot safer
|
On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall.
Sorry, I don't really get your point.
Terran has a lot of viable opening & techs trees too, if not more.
reaper rush, the good ol' MMMM, mines drop, mines fast burrow, speed/cloak banshees, libs, cyclones, hellions, hellbat, blue flame rush, siege tanks, vikings, the OP ravens etc.
Mines, liberators & banshees rushes usually resulting in automatic loss to Protoss if the protoss fails to anticipate & react pre-emptively with appropriate tech.
|
On December 21 2016 20:21 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 19:18 _Croc wrote:We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps. I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran. In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that? I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back. I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others... Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!! What the hell was that. Btw. The proper spelling is: Suka Blyat'!
Wow, you are correct. Learned something today.
|
On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Uh sorry to say but your kind of slow or didnt understand that I was responding to the nested quote where the guys said, "I dont know why they are rebuffing Hydralisks they are already great at taking down interceptors" to which my response was, "have you ever fielded Hydralisks vs carriers?" because yes Carriers atm are cancer style a move tier 3 doom units which Protoss seems to always have one of (old school colossus?) and that's not good for the race or the game. At least try to read the nested quote next time man, no I don't think Hydralisks should own Carriers, that sounds about as dumb as the Terran whiners who think tier 1 marine/maruader should counter 3/5 tier 3 units from Zerg. Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
|
On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
Uh sorry to say but your kind of slow or didnt understand that I was responding to the nested quote where the guys said, "I dont know why they are rebuffing Hydralisks they are already great at taking down interceptors" to which my response was, "have you ever fielded Hydralisks vs carriers?" because yes Carriers atm are cancer style a move tier 3 doom units which Protoss seems to always have one of (old school colossus?) and that's not good for the race or the game.
At least try to read the nested quote next time man, no I don't think Hydralisks should own Carriers, that sounds about as dumb as the Terran whiners who think tier 1 marine/maruader should counter 3/5 tier 3 units from Zerg.
I would agree that Lurkers can be overwhelming for Protoss ground armies. On that same note, Ultralisks weren't even viable vs Protoss before the nerf so no clue why your complaining about them, have you ever seen how terrible Lurker/Ultra compositions are vs. Archon/Immortal/Chargelot/Templar? Try, "so bad it's not even funny" from a Zerg's perspective. Most Protoss players I play that lose to Lurkers are the players with 140 APM and no real mechanic who A move into burrowed Lurker lines and get flanked and then cry, "Zerg is such a joke look at this" while I'm cruising around 250 APM and multitasking my ass off.
If your losing to Ultralisks and Banelings as a Protoss player, you are doing something really really wrong.
|
On December 22 2016 02:20 _Croc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 20:21 insitelol wrote:On December 21 2016 19:18 _Croc wrote:We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps. I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran. In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that? I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back. I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others... Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!! What the hell was that. Btw. The proper spelling is: Suka Blyat'! Wow, you are correct. Learned something today.
Right, you should learn from native speakers.
|
So having carriers moving from destiny to destiny and owning all ground units for zerg is truly something that is utterly boring.
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
|
On December 22 2016 03:31 Foxxan wrote:
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
It's good you cleared it up for us all
|
On December 22 2016 03:59 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 03:31 Foxxan wrote:
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
It's good you cleared it up for us all
So having carriers moving from destiny to destiny and owning all ground units for zerg is truly something that is utterly boring.
|
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays.
|
On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays.
This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever."
But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now.
|
On December 22 2016 05:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays. This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever." But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now.
Tanks are awfull vs everything protoss (minus stalkers and I guess colossus to some degree) an A moved zealot immortal archon army can chew through any tank based mech army like it is no ones bussines,
|
Carriers are absurd right now.
I lose 85% of my games vs Protoss if they managed to get Carriers out.
The only games I have won vs Carriers are when I entered late game with a huge lead. If the game state is even it is more or less a free win for Protoss.
The only working counter is BCs but it rare that you can get out enough BCs to counter the Carriers. It gets even worse if he mixes in void rays and Tempest as well.
I think all capital ships (Carriers, Tempest and BCs) need a hit point reduction. As it its the units that is supposed to counter them like viking and corruptors are simply not effective enough.
|
On December 21 2016 16:52 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:26 xTJx wrote:On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league? That was always obvious. Mech is horrible for the game. Especially the Avilo style mech. That guy hasn't proactively engaged the opponent in his entire life. A vast majority of his games consists of him sieging tanks in front of his base and building missile turrets and command centers. He unsieges his tanks when he floats a CC to the next expansion. Once he has half the map and the opponent has suicided all of his units into the tank lines, Avilo has won. Woopdiedoo, we're so glad mech is viable. If the opponent refuses to suicide units, and starts building for example a massive carrier army, Avilo rages for 30 minutes straight about balance. He's also not only a bad loser, he's a disgustingly bad winner. He flames his opponents when he wins nearly every time. As far as Avilo as a games designer, I've never heard a more laughable thing in my life. Seriously the most biased and obnoxious twitch personality out there, who lives with his mum, sleeps in a bunk bed with no sheets, can't present a clear and concise argument, doesn't acknowledge any of his faults, blames all of his losses on maphacks and stream cheating, would in someone's opinion make a good part of a design team at a real games company? For SC2's sake I'm glad that person who suggested that isn't recruiting. In fact I suspect he's unemployed just like Avilo is, because anyone who works with real people in an office would know what types of people can be productive members of a team.
Blizzard never listened to myself or other mech knowledgable people about making ground anti-air better than air units. The reason mech is a turtle fest is because any time any amount of air hits the map you're forced to start massing starports.
In SC1, you could crank out 5-10 goliaths with mega range to deal with air units. Look at current ASL or whatever brood war games. Every game is GROUND UNITS VS GROUND UNITS. You almost never see an air deathball in SC1 games, which means the players are CONSTANTLY TRADING UNITS VS UNITS.
Imagine if scouts in SC1 were as strong as void rays. Do you think mech would be playable or Terran at all vs Protoss? The game would be unplayable because you'd be forced into making an insane amount of goliaths every game, and every single early game would be hampered by lack of AA.
|
|
|
On December 22 2016 05:43 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 05:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays. This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever." But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now. Tanks are awfull vs everything protoss (minus stalkers and I guess colossus to some degree) an A moved zealot immortal archon army can chew through any tank based mech army like it is no ones bussines,
I agree with you bro, I was only commenting on the relationship of the tank and the Immortal. You are right A move nooblots/Archons do smash on tank lines.
Honestly Immortals aside I think tank based mech is never going to be viable vs protoss unless they make + shields damage but that just sounds dumb.
|
Just want to throw this out there. I'm ok with carriers not being 'viable'. I didn't mind the role it had pre 3.8. Going quickly into T3 air shouldn't be a normal thing you can do without dying. As a surprise strategy, and strong when maxed I felt it had a good place.
I mean to be honest it was kind of exciting when a pro player would go carriers specifically because everyone knows it's super risky and you need to get a huge supply up before winning. It was like WHAT? He's going carriers?? Can he DO that?
I don't mind that role for the unit and I don't think we need to make them a staple. Just my two cents
|
Norway839 Posts
|
my english is bad. i hope you understand all of it.
burrowed fungal is op vs bio. terran always need some medevacs. if you dont patch techreactor and accelerate raven-making, they cant make a raven.
cyclon is dummy because of its AA. it can't kill oracle, muta and medevac. it is only useful about all-in push.
early cyclon+hellbat push is op vs zerg. it destroys zerg's economy.
zerg is terrible considering AA. especially vs protoss. you should buff zerg AA or nerf protoss AA.
baneling is super powerful vs protoss ground army.
protoss is dominant vs terran. toss users have many options when they do all-in push, also they easily stop medevac push cuz they have inexpensive observer and void ray. they always know where their enemy comes from. you should raise the price of observer or nerf it other way.
200vs200 battle in pvt is smiling to protoss, before vikings beat Colossus, terran army is wiped out. So i concluded the only way terran can win is early cyclone push. protoss cannot be strong in both attack and defense.
the most hateful thing is warp prism. slow down its speed and dont let it take up archon/dark templar.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On December 22 2016 01:45 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall. Sorry, I don't really get your point. Terran has a lot of viable opening & techs trees too, if not more. reaper rush, the good ol' MMMM, mines drop, mines fast burrow, speed/cloak banshees, libs, cyclones, hellions, hellbat, blue flame rush, siege tanks, vikings, the OP ravens etc. Mines, liberators & banshees rushes usually resulting in automatic loss to Protoss if the protoss fails to anticipate & react pre-emptively with appropriate tech.
That sounds very much like TvP in Broodwar. Protoss have so many openings and if you don't react properly you just lose.
|
On December 22 2016 03:07 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic. Uh sorry to say but your kind of slow or didnt understand that I was responding to the nested quote where the guys said, "I dont know why they are rebuffing Hydralisks they are already great at taking down interceptors" to which my response was, "have you ever fielded Hydralisks vs carriers?" because yes Carriers atm are cancer style a move tier 3 doom units which Protoss seems to always have one of (old school colossus?) and that's not good for the race or the game. At least try to read the nested quote next time man, no I don't think Hydralisks should own Carriers, that sounds about as dumb as the Terran whiners who think tier 1 marine/maruader should counter 3/5 tier 3 units from Zerg. I would agree that Lurkers can be overwhelming for Protoss ground armies. On that same note, Ultralisks weren't even viable vs Protoss before the nerf so no clue why your complaining about them, have you ever seen how terrible Lurker/Ultra compositions are vs. Archon/Immortal/Chargelot/Templar? Try, "so bad it's not even funny" from a Zerg's perspective. Most Protoss players I play that lose to Lurkers are the players with 140 APM and no real mechanic who A move into burrowed Lurker lines and get flanked and then cry, "Zerg is such a joke look at this" while I'm cruising around 250 APM and multitasking my ass off. If your losing to Ultralisks and Banelings as a Protoss player, you are doing something really really wrong.
Terribly sorry, I aplogize for not double checking who you were replying to. Not going to happen again
|
On December 22 2016 18:38 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 01:45 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall. Sorry, I don't really get your point. Terran has a lot of viable opening & techs trees too, if not more. reaper rush, the good ol' MMMM, mines drop, mines fast burrow, speed/cloak banshees, libs, cyclones, hellions, hellbat, blue flame rush, siege tanks, vikings, the OP ravens etc. Mines, liberators & banshees rushes usually resulting in automatic loss to Protoss if the protoss fails to anticipate & react pre-emptively with appropriate tech. That sounds very much like TvP in Broodwar. Protoss have so many openings and if you don't react properly you just lose.
Actually this sounds like protoss throughout all of hots. 10-18 viable all ins/macro openings/pressure builds all which can incredibly punish Terran if they make a mistake in any way and cun punish terran for premptivly preparing for one of the many many builds only to be punished because there opponent did a different one with no major consequence if the build picked does not match up well with what terran did except that terran does not lose on the spot. I dont think the match-up currently is like this, the match up is just finally in a fairer state where both sides have adequate options and opening games.
|
I don't mind doing small changes fast.
But they are literally not moving anywhere with carrier. They has to change it more significantly with other changes, this fine tuning will still leave it useless or brokenly OP in PvZ. They just can't do better with changing interceptor cost.
Baneling HP nerf was totally unnecessary, and hydra HP buff should have been in this patch instead.
Maybe swarmhosts tweaks. I didn't actually seen enough even games with swarmhosts, so I don't know.
Honestly I'm glad I'm not playing 1v1 and don't care as much anymore about tournaments. It's shame the starcraft team isn't doing their job properly. But even if they did, the game wouldn't be in much better state. So I guess I can see why management doesn't care as much about that. As long as they keep looking like they are doing something it's fine.
|
The fun thing is:
Z players complain about P
T players complain about P
P players complain about T and Z
the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine
|
On December 22 2016 19:48 VHbb wrote:The fun thing is: Z players complain about P T players complain about P P players complain about T and Z the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine
In my head it goes like this, ever since WoL:
T players complain about both zerg and protoss lategame and mech being ass.
Z players complain about whatever is going on this month, otherwise complain about ZvZ roach borefest.
P players complain about protoss design.
|
On December 22 2016 19:53 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 19:48 VHbb wrote:The fun thing is: Z players complain about P T players complain about P P players complain about T and Z the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine In my head it goes like this, ever since WoL: T players complain about both zerg and protoss lategame and mech being ass. Z players complain about whatever is going on this month, otherwise complain about ZvZ roach borefest. P players complain about protoss design.
fact is:
99.9% of T players complaining are bullshit
99.9% of Z players complaining are bullshit
99.9% of P players complaining are bullshit
and im happy blizzard doesnt hear every little brain fart from frustrated lower league players...
|
On December 22 2016 18:12 jimjimmie wrote:
they easily stop medevac push cuz they have inexpensive observer and void ray..
This is the most hilarious part. Nerf the shit out of observers!!!!!
|
On December 22 2016 19:53 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 19:48 VHbb wrote:The fun thing is: Z players complain about P T players complain about P P players complain about T and Z the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine In my head it goes like this, ever since WoL: T players complain about both zerg and protoss lategame and mech being ass. Z players complain about whatever is going on this month, otherwise complain about ZvZ roach borefest. P players complain about protoss design.
I think everyone complains about protoss design.
Though tbh I think protoss design is a lot better now than what it was in WOL. Still could be a ton better.
|
Yep, I think also that a lot of people complain about "design", when they want to complain about something they find hard to deal with in the game.
For instance, photon overcharge and it's "terrible" design (I never understand why it's a terrible design, however I do understand why it's difficult to play against/around it), or the mega-hate vs the mothership core (it's a hero unit->terrible terrible design!! )
I also agree that complaints/whine from low league players (<GM, so most of us - me included of course) is not so significant.. I find very strong certain units just because I'm not good enough to deal with them, but that doesn't mean they are poorly designed or too strong
|
have we learned nothing from political correct behaviour and banning balance talk ?
dismissing everything as wood league balance whine is what got us here.
|
For instance, photon overcharge and it's "terrible" design (I never understand why it's a terrible design, however I do understand why it's difficult to play against/around it), or the mega-hate vs the mothership core (it's a hero unit->terrible terrible design!! )
Yes I think its a fine and very healthy dynamic that promotes more macro-games while not preventing harass play from occuring.
I do however take issue with protoss units being kinda unmicroable aside from abillity-spamming.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
yeah i remember how i cried back in wol: come on, tvp late game unplayable, feedback kills every hightech unit terrans have
and people mocked me: shut up copper whiner, learn to emp your battlecruisers and thors
|
On December 22 2016 20:42 VHbb wrote:Yep, I think also that a lot of people complain about "design", when they want to complain about something they find hard to deal with in the game. For instance, photon overcharge and it's "terrible" design (I never understand why it's a terrible design, however I do understand why it's difficult to play against/around it), or the mega-hate vs the mothership core (it's a hero unit->terrible terrible design!! ) I also agree that complaints/whine from low league players (<GM, so most of us - me included of course) is not so significant.. I find very strong certain units just because I'm not good enough to deal with them, but that doesn't mean they are poorly designed or too strong
The reason people hate photon overcharge is it allows deffense without substantial investment into units. This goes against the idea that it should take an investment In units and production or static d to hold attacks. This allows p to do things like rush there oponent with tech openings, have hardly any units at home and yet be safe against any counter aggression.
Is it nessisary for game ballance, probably, is it an affront to how rts have traditionally expected people to hold aggression yes it is.
|
Reason why i call it bad design, the photon overcharge or mothership core is because it blocks marauder openings, it blocks interaction between the attacking units and the defend cannon while as toss, its a 100/100 investment which is to small compared to what the attacker puts in the attack, while it still wins the fight.
Bad design. Healthy play is many options and interactions, this blocks it all.
Also a-move armees which are super deathballish is not healthy either, unit control, microcontrol is good and healthy gameplay while the opposite is true for amovish deathball type of play.
Therefore i call this bad design as well.
Blizzard can do better, or maybe they cant.
|
On December 21 2016 13:35 SwiftRH wrote:
protoss still cancer to play. blizzard refuses to even address that it is a problem
DK lost it completely some time ago.
|
They really need to stop tweaking everything all the time. Having one stable release would be helpful
|
On December 22 2016 06:50 MockHamill wrote:
Carriers are absurd right now.
I lose 85% of my games vs Protoss if they managed to get Carriers out.
get good.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 23 2016 14:03 Tosster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 13:35 SwiftRH wrote:
protoss still cancer to play. blizzard refuses to even address that it is a problem DK lost it completely some time ago.
Uh, this x10, David Kim never has been qualified to do this job, he obviously has connections. I mean for God's sake his "qualification" was balancing DOW 40K, do you guys know what the pro scene balance was for DOW?
It was 2 out of 6 races being viable because they were brokenly overpowered against the brokenly weak other 4. THAT is who is at the helm of a game that is vastly more complex then DOW ever way.
|
how long did he work for Relic? i didn't see him in the credits for DoW40K
He did not walk into a game designer position off the street. He was promoted into it after working for Blizzard for years.
its clear the changes made to SC2 over the past 3 years reflect a heavy C&C influence. A game he did not work on, but many in the SC2 team did. It is a team effort and not just 1 guy. If it were all about DK there'd be no C&C type stuff.
i'm having fun with the game even though at 125 APM i can climb higher on the ladder with Zerg than i can with Terran. Balance is important to GSLers and WCSers and i hope they balance the game for them. For me the balance is "close enough" and i'm having fun.
My views on balance for players below money making levels is best reflected in this video by Force.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
^ I definitely don't stand behind length of time determining how good you are at a position whether you ascend there through seniority or however. I've had plenty of bad mechanics, bad plumbers, bad doctors who had degrees and qualifications out the ass that still sucked at their job. Balance in the game is fine, it's not about balance, especially (as you posted) for people below all but GM level. I'm mid masters Zerg so I'm not like totally ignorant about the game, I've been here since WOL beta.
It's about blatantly dumb design flaws in the game that make this games player base continuously shrink while BW, an ugly 10 year old + game released in the techology dark ages continues to thrive with 8K or more viewers for the top 5 streamers. Even on a weekend day when there is lots of SC2 streams if you combine them all they don't even equal ONE of the top 5 streamers for BW, that in my opinion is pretty damn sad and is pretty much the proverbial, "Writing on the Wall" when it comes to SC2's future, and that is that it's been replaced by it's predecessor.
Ya know, things like..
Air army superiority? Energy units that do lethal damage like Infestors, Vipers and Ravens? An economy system that does not reward expanding, it merely punishes lack of expanding and this has been explained in depth a thousand times by very high level players. Foolishly implemented band aid solutions like Tankivacs, Invulnerable Nydus, Pylon Overcharge, MULES, Swarm Hosts, Archon toilet?
By the way, I don't even watch BW, I much prefer SC2 both to watch and to play then BW so I'm not sitting here saying, "change sc2 into bw" I'm just saying it's pretty pathetic that such an old game is so much better designed and long lasting then it's successor.
|
if DK worked for Relic for 2 weeks his ability to influence DoW is almost zero. so if you do not know how long he worked for Relic just say so. Without knowing how long he worked for Relic criticizing him about DoW40K with incomplete information is off base.
1991's Super Tecmo Bowl outlasted its many, many sequels. Fire Pro Wrestling 6 man Scramble.. same thing. NHL '94 ... same. it happens all the time and will continue to happen. BL2 outlasted BL:TPS. The debate over "regular Tecmo Bowl" and "SUper Tecmo Bowl" still rages on... 25 years later. Same shit.. different decade.
in watching Pardo and Kim over the years i'd say Pardo > Kim. However, the entire RTS genre's combined revenue does not generate sufficient revenue and profit to buy Pardo's interest. I will be shocked if Pardo's new studio ever goes anywhere near the RTS genre.
|
I don't get how they're still not changing the viper. Nerfing the carrier's interceptor because the moment the unit is buildable it's unstoppable in PvZ, buffing skyterran to ridiculous levels so it's worth something, it all comes down to the viper being an unit thought out by a donkey.
The viper is completely overwhelming against ground mech, forcing it into extreme turtling, but the viper is complete shit against skytoss because it just gets feedbacked or deals one instance of 60 dmg to 300+ hp units.
At some point blizz is gonna need to realise that the viper fits too many roles, while singlehandedly making ground mech terrible, and sucking ass at dealing with skytoss.
|
On December 22 2016 20:17 KOtical wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 19:53 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 22 2016 19:48 VHbb wrote:The fun thing is: Z players complain about P T players complain about P P players complain about T and Z the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine In my head it goes like this, ever since WoL: T players complain about both zerg and protoss lategame and mech being ass. Z players complain about whatever is going on this month, otherwise complain about ZvZ roach borefest. P players complain about protoss design. fact is: 99.9% of T players complaining are bullshit 99.9% of Z players complaining are bullshit 99.9% of P players complaining are bullshit and im happy blizzard doesnt hear every little brain fart from frustrated lower league players...
Why be so condescending?
Blizzard is definitely listening to the "lower league players" - as they should. Since there would be no scene if there weren't any low level players.
The real fact is: Some complaining is just balance whine. But some complaining is also legitimate criticism on Blizzard's approach to both balancing and designing the game. We cannot preemptively judge away every bit of whining and need to look at what's actually completely legit.
Personally I think that they should do all the crazy changes right now. This is off-season, so it's a good time to try out all the "bullshit" ideas floating around. Calling for a conservative approach now is a surefire way to get a stale game again.
|
i agree, if ever there is a time for crazy changes the off-season is that time.
the lower league(silvers, golds) players i play with in my clan think LotV is too complicated with too many units so when we play 2v2s together we play WoL.
|
Bad design. Healthy play is many options and interactions, this blocks it all.
First of, maurauder openings were never viable in the first place. Wasn't good late WOL and would be dead against oracles/adepts here anyway.
Secondly, pylon overcharge does not even prevent a Maurauder opening on most maps since you will not be able to cover a whole expansion without one pylon.
The only types of attacks it blocks is those that have a high percentage of being game ending.
|
On December 24 2016 06:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
if DK worked for Relic for 2 weeks his ability to influence DoW is almost zero. so if you do not know how long he worked for Relic just say so. Without knowing how long he worked for Relic criticizing him about DoW40K with incomplete information is off base.
1991's Super Tecmo Bowl outlasted its many, many sequels. Fire Pro Wrestling 6 man Scramble.. same thing. NHL '94 ... same. it happens all the time and will continue to happen. BL2 outlasted BL:TPS. The debate over "regular Tecmo Bowl" and "SUper Tecmo Bowl" still rages on... 25 years later. Same shit.. different decade.
in watching Pardo and Kim over the years i'd say Pardo > Kim. However, the entire RTS genre's combined revenue does not generate sufficient revenue and profit to buy Pardo's interest. I will be shocked if Pardo's new studio ever goes anywhere near the RTS genre.
He worked there for about a year or so, I do know, essentially he was involved in balance with the final incarnation of the game which is Soul Storm which is probably one of the most disliked of the entire series multiplayer wise and unit design wise, he also worked on balance and design on Company of Heroes but I know nothing about that.
|
On December 24 2016 09:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Bad design. Healthy play is many options and interactions, this blocks it all. First of, maurauder openings were never viable in the first place. Wasn't good late WOL and would be dead against oracles/adepts here anyway. Secondly, pylon overcharge does not even prevent a Maurauder opening on most maps since you will not be able to cover a whole expansion without one pylon. The only types of attacks it blocks is those that have a high percentage of being game ending.
Ofcourse it blocks deadlyattack that would be game ending. Thats the whole point, instead of tweaking that, they get mothership core.
Feels lazy and uninspiring.
Marauder openings might not have worked either, but thats the point again, instead of tweaking that they made it 100% lose if you open marauders.
|
How is the interaction between:
marine-marauders vs cannons
better than
marine-marauders vs MSC+pylons?
I really don't think you 100% loose if you open marauders because of photon overcharge.. I've seen so many games (from ByuN to my ladder) where the terran gets the protoss unprepared and just stim 16 marines, snipe 2-3 pylons (overcharged) in a matter of seconds, and deal significant damage..
What it prevents is you dropping 2 medivacs in my main and ending the game (where is the interaction here, I'm not sure)
|
On December 24 2016 09:53 VHbb wrote:
How is the interaction between:
marine-marauders vs cannons
better than
marine-marauders vs MSC+pylons?
I really don't think you 100% loose if you open marauders because of photon overcharge.. I've seen so many games (from ByuN to my ladder) where the terran gets the protoss unprepared and just stim 16 marines, snipe 2-3 pylons (overcharged) in a matter of seconds, and deal significant damage..
What it prevents is you dropping 2 medivacs in my main and ending the game (where is the interaction here, I'm not sure)
The only thing better with cannons that i can think of on top of my head is that they cost more resources for the protoss, requires more strategy for the protoss.
Other than that, the interaction is bad, i dont see why you ask that tho?
I never implied it were better or anything.
You might not lose 100%, you are right i should probably take that back vs the mothership core.
My point still stands, mothership core DOES NOT contribute in a good way to the game. Yes you can look at the game and say
"but mothership core lets protoss be able to survive and be even vs two medivac drop" and so on.
But thats the point, instead of the mothership core blizzard should have TWEAKED AND DESIGNED STUFF so the openings were more dynamic and protoss could defend well vs all kind of stuff while maybe at the same time BE THE AGRESSOR themself without being all-in.
REAL time strategy, keyword here is REAL.
You should interact with your opponent. Period.
|
Well we agree to disagree
I play protoss and I feel I can be aggressive, without all-ining, and defending at home with a few units and the MSC+pylons... so yes, I can interact in a better designed way (since the word "design" is very fashionable now), thanks to a solid defense from the MSC. If I have to defend with cannons+warp gate units, I probably either turtle until I get super strong units (carriers, collossus) and go for a deathball push, or simply all-in without caring to much about your counter-attacks..
|
On December 24 2016 09:45 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2016 06:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
if DK worked for Relic for 2 weeks his ability to influence DoW is almost zero. so if you do not know how long he worked for Relic just say so. Without knowing how long he worked for Relic criticizing him about DoW40K with incomplete information is off base.
1991's Super Tecmo Bowl outlasted its many, many sequels. Fire Pro Wrestling 6 man Scramble.. same thing. NHL '94 ... same. it happens all the time and will continue to happen. BL2 outlasted BL:TPS. The debate over "regular Tecmo Bowl" and "SUper Tecmo Bowl" still rages on... 25 years later. Same shit.. different decade.
in watching Pardo and Kim over the years i'd say Pardo > Kim. However, the entire RTS genre's combined revenue does not generate sufficient revenue and profit to buy Pardo's interest. I will be shocked if Pardo's new studio ever goes anywhere near the RTS genre.
He worked there for about a year or so, I do know, essentially he was involved in balance with the final incarnation of the game which is Soul Storm which is probably one of the most disliked of the entire series multiplayer wise and unit design wise, he also worked on balance and design on Company of Heroes but I know nothing about that.
"a year or so" - was it 7 months or 17 months? any source on DK's time at Relic? So we've established DK was involved at the end of its development cycle when the publisher was demanding new races get added to keep the money coming in.
if you can list all the RTS games with 6 or more races that are well balanced so we can compare them we have a discussion point. The vast majority of RTS game developers are never given the resources by the publisher to continue to support of the game long after its release date. As a result, most RTS games are imbalanced because it takes more than a year to balance an RTS game after its released.
|
On December 24 2016 10:27 VHbb wrote:Well we agree to disagree I play protoss and I feel I can be aggressive, without all-ining, and defending at home with a few units and the MSC+pylons... so yes, I can interact in a better designed way (since the word "design" is very fashionable now), thanks to a solid defense from the MSC. If I have to defend with cannons+warp gate units, I probably either turtle until I get super strong units (carriers, collossus) and go for a deathball push, or simply all-in without caring to much about your counter-attacks..
MSC was, is, and always will be a silly band aid to the fact that protoss gateway units are produced via warp, and have extremely abusive abilities. The combinaison of both makes it impossible to buff protoss "defense" without making agressive warps (therefore offense/allin) imba.
Imagine a stalker that can't be warped and doesn't have the (extremely gamebreaking on paper) ability to fucking teleport : it'd need like 200 hp and 20 damage per hit to allow protoss to survive.
And suddently you have a dragoon.
So the only way to remove the MSC defense and make protoss rely on something else than gimmicks to survive without having even more imba allins would be to have a gateway unit that's only strong against units, and doesn't have an abusive ability (while being strong enough to be warped where protoss is underdefended).
Which was supposed to be the adept. A strong, bulky but not-so-mobile unit that could give protoss room to remove the photon overcharge.
But nah, of course DK turned it into a harass unit. Arguably the best in the game too. Because why defend your base when you can spamm a silly spell from a hero unit and spamm a silly ability in opponent's mineral lines?
If the adept retained its stats while having 40 more HPs but loosing the shade, protoss could do with a redesign of the photon overcharge. If the MSC turned a pylon into a shield battery while extremely bulky adepts were warped, base defense would rely on units much more than shooting pylons.
|
The way the game is now photon overcharge is needed. I think its just that some of us would prefer the game to be such that it is not. It violates alot of the traditional ways rts game mechanics work. It feals like a sloppy fix because blizzard could find no other way to fix the early game interactions between protoss and other races. will this ever change, its unlikely. Will we occasionally whine about it because its a dumb non interactive solution, yes.
|
Well someone asked why people say bad design about stuff, and the question was specifically targeted the mothership core so i wrote down why i call it that way and to proof its not something people just say for the sake of it.
|
Allow me to say that however the argument of "bad design" and "gimmicks" (both words that are very very vague) are brought up by Terran players, I think that there is a little bit of bias here
I'm not saying MSC is perfect, I'm saying that it's not the terrible pitfall of sc2 as you seem to describe it..
I also don't fully get the argument about warping in units and the strength of P warogate units: sure I agree that the warogate ability makes so that you cannot buff P units too much.. by I'd rather have the protoss race as it is, very different wet terrains, with the warp gate mechanics as its fundamental trait, rather than bulkier terrans.. if this means having the MSC to balance the early game, so be it, it doesn't mean it's badly designed only because it doesn't respect the canon of RTS or it doesn't look like a terrans unit..
|
Ofcourse it blocks deadlyattack that would be game ending. Thats the whole point, instead of tweaking that, they get mothership core.
And if you as I want games to be more macrooriented w/ early game aggression being harass related then overcharge is an excellent mechanic.
Also never understood what's so fun about slow maurauders either. For me units with movement speed below 2.5 are just plain boring. Seeing medivac, air harass, hellion harass is alot more interesting imo.
But anyway as I point out, pylon overcharge has nothing to do with prevent maurauder openings from working. Any type of aggression where one pylon can't block of the entrance can still theoretically do damage.
It violates alot of the traditional ways rts game mechanics work.
What traditional ways are you talking about? Because having some type of strong defenders advantage is very normal in RTS games. Instead, relying on forcefields as the main defenders advantage is very unusual.
|
On December 24 2016 14:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Ofcourse it blocks deadlyattack that would be game ending. Thats the whole point, instead of tweaking that, they get mothership core. And if you as I want games to be more macrooriented w/ early game aggression being harass related then overcharge is an excellent mechanic. Also never understood what's so fun about slow maurauders either. For me units with movement speed below 2.5 are just plain boring. Seeing medivac, air harass, hellion harass is alot more interesting imo. But anyway as I point out, pylon overcharge has nothing to do with prevent maurauder openings from working. Any type of aggression where one pylon can't block of the entrance can still theoretically do damage. What traditional ways are you talking about? Because having some type of strong defenders advantage is very normal in RTS games. Instead, relying on forcefields as the main defenders advantage is very unusual.
Ok I will clarify. There are a few reasons why I think the mother ship is poorly designed (NOTE not imbalanced p would suck without it in there current form)
1. Part of the skill of playing RTS is being able to scout your opponents plan and prepare accordingly. Since there is almost 0 reason to not get a mother ship p just always has a substantial defense no matter what they scout.
2. Generally defense should be an investment. In Brood war, RA3, AOE3 and Supreme Commander to defend an attack you have to invest significant resources, often less than your opponent because of defenders advantage but enough that you have to invest in defense. This allows players to show good decision making and scouting. A good player will deviate from there plan to adapt to enemy timings and a bad player wont do so effectively. The mother ship essentially makes it unnecessary to make any kind of adaptation. Since you built a mother ship core your pretty much covered vs most things.
3. you could claim, that p has to invest in the mother ship and that enough but i disagree, since 100% of the time you build a cyber core there is almost no incentive not to build the thing except to save 100 gas. If you look at terran or zerg a proper defense against protoss requires them to a)scout, b)build units/static d of the appropriate type c) execute defense correctly. p is completely spared this burden because the mother ship is always built, is good against everything, and requires a one button push as its only execution.
I think its bad design that protoss can build whatever tech they want freely without deviation because the defense the mothership provides is so powerful and cheep. I think its fair because of the other disadvantages protoss has buts its also not a great solution to protoss early game weakness because it does not require protoss to scout,prepare, and execute proper defenses in many situations. This leads to stale early games with few options for the other races and allows p to often mercelelsy rush/cheese there opponent with very little penalty if they dont do enough damage. It also kills many 1 base pressure and allin builds from terran and zerg while p still has this strategic option. Overall its not a great mechanic.
|
On December 21 2016 04:24 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
This gives us the confidence that SC2 will continue to be improved next year, and we look forward to working closely together with you next year as well! Happy Holidays and here’s to a great New Year!!
Continue to improve? I'd be behind that 4 years ago. It's too late for that. Now is not the time to 'continually improve'.
Now is the time for SC3... or, dare i say it... WC3.
SC2 is stale. pros are leaving. time for something fresh Blizz. Show us the future of RTS.
|
been saying it for years, they're super out of touch with what's actually happening in the games
every update feels like they pick out a couple of popular reddit opinions, or just what happens to be the flavor of the month, and then write some shit around that
sometimes they pick the wrong flavor of the month and aren't aware that popular opinion has changed
the last times david actually played sc2 in a somewhat competitive manner was probably more than 5 years ago
looking at it from that perspective, you can't really even get mad at them for what seems to be a somewhat decent effort..
however, you simply cannot balance a game if you don't know the game
|
On December 24 2016 16:41 MilkDud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 04:24 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
This gives us the confidence that SC2 will continue to be improved next year, and we look forward to working closely together with you next year as well! Happy Holidays and here’s to a great New Year!! Continue to improve? I'd be behind that 4 years ago. It's too late for that. Now is not the time to 'continually improve'. Now is the time for SC3... or, dare i say it... WC3. SC2 is stale. pros are leaving. time for something fresh Blizz. Show us the future of RTS.
Well they pretty much confirmed the exact opposite :> more support for sc2 for at least 2 years. Or you gonna fund the new RTS development?
|
On December 24 2016 10:27 VHbb wrote:Well we agree to disagree I play protoss and I feel I can be aggressive, without all-ining, and defending at home with a few units and the MSC+pylons... so yes, I can interact in a better designed way (since the word "design" is very fashionable now), thanks to a solid defense from the MSC. If I have to defend with cannons+warp gate units, I probably either turtle until I get super strong units (carriers, collossus) and go for a deathball push, or simply all-in without caring to much about your counter-attacks..
You're basically saying "I like MSC because it is good". I understand that, but that argument is worthless. The same argument can be made about 7-range Hydras and other stuff that was just good.
Basically, the Mothership's Core main purpose is delaying attacks so you can reposition and have a better defensive position, so you can feel more comfortable about playing aggresively. This task was previously assigned to static defense aka cannons.
Wouldn't it be cool if your defense wouldn't depend on you activating an ability 2-3 times at the right moment?
Imagine you could place cannons, that as I said already exist mainly for defensive purposes(with the potential for fun aggression), and actually have a worthwhile defensive structure that your opponent needed to tactically circumvent, either with micro or better units. You could still be aggressive, and even better, not need to babysit the area to activate the ability, just more macro-oriented planning.
The MSC is just Blizzard's way to easily solve a problem that existed for a long time within Protoss' defense capabilities, and it's certainly worth arguing whether or not it was a good solution. It works - but it also creates a lot of frustration for many players, something which SC2 certainly already has enough of.
I don't know whether or not making a better cannon or something along those lines is a better solution. But I would love for Blizzard to try.
More clean solutions instead of relying on multiple units / abilities that, slapped together, get the job done is always a good thing imho.
|
Just give me a button that I can press that turns all my CCs into long range PFs for a short while and I will be OK with your MSC. Then we can all skip defense, scouting and the other tenets of RTS games.
|
And if you as I want games to be more macrooriented w/ early game aggression being harass related then overcharge is an excellent mechanic.
The msc is not an excellent mechanic because of reasons said. If macrogames didnt occur before, then fix that by other means instead of the msc
Also never understood what's so fun about slow maurauders either. For me units with movement speed below 2.5 are just plain boring. Seeing medivac, air harass, hellion harass is alot more interesting imo
They arent very interesting no, but the whole concept of marauder openings against protoss could be viable while making things for protoss viable as well, and then we have a little "war" in the opening marauders, marines vs zealots, stalkers and then perhaps add some ghosts for terran and idk, sentries or something else from gateway that interact well.
And nothing stopped blizzard to change the slow effect either.
The medivac harass is imo lame, also hellions are lame aswell as harass unit imo.
But anyway as I point out, pylon overcharge has nothing to do with prevent maurauder openings from working. Any type of aggression where one pylon can't block of the entrance can still theoretically do damage.
Dont understand this sentence. However, the msc do block marauder since it shoots from the air, and marauders cant do anything about it. Pretty unfun this concept here.
Instead of this msc and other stuff we could have the early game alot more interesting.
|
Also one thing that came to my mind, blizzard said that they will and have changed the economy for lotv, but as i see it, they didnt. They changed the mineral fields having lower minerals.
Perhaps they changed the gas aswell with lower gas?
Feels so shallow to use the sentence "we changed the economy" in this sense. Blizzard are these days using words as "epic" "great" and other stuff which is just pure pr crap.
"We have this EPIC new hero" "We have this EPIC new game" WTF. Let other people form their opinions please....
|
On December 24 2016 21:37 DeadByDawn wrote:
Just give me a button that I can press that turns all my CCs into long range PFs for a short while and I will be OK with your MSC. Then we can all skip defense, scouting and the other tenets of RTS games.
hahhahahhah you are a blind joke :D
|
On December 24 2016 22:26 Foxxan wrote:
Also one thing that came to my mind, blizzard said that they will and have changed the economy for lotv, but as i see it, they didnt. They changed the mineral fields having lower minerals.
Perhaps they changed the gas aswell with lower gas?
Feels so shallow to use the sentence "we changed the economy" in this sense. Blizzard are these days using words as "epic" "great" and other stuff which is just pure pr crap.
"We have this EPIC new hero" "We have this EPIC new game" WTF. Let other people form their opinions please....
my opinion is Blizzard makes the best games in the world.
|
On December 24 2016 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2016 22:26 Foxxan wrote:
Also one thing that came to my mind, blizzard said that they will and have changed the economy for lotv, but as i see it, they didnt. They changed the mineral fields having lower minerals.
Perhaps they changed the gas aswell with lower gas?
Feels so shallow to use the sentence "we changed the economy" in this sense. Blizzard are these days using words as "epic" "great" and other stuff which is just pure pr crap.
"We have this EPIC new hero" "We have this EPIC new game" WTF. Let other people form their opinions please.... my opinion is Blizzard makes the best games in the world.
And? Your comment is completely irrelevant to my quote, stop harass me.
|
Btw I don't think that what protoss need to defend drops/harassment are bulkier units (someone suggested bulkier adepts without shades).
The issue with marine/mine drops is that if you don't have a defense already there (possibly with detection) you loose 16-20 probes (and the game) in 1-2 seconds (this is even more dangerous than oracles, which are often referred to as "gimmick" - the truth is that you can deal with an oracle with a single missile turret, and it's very rare that it gets more than 6-7 kills in the best case scenario). A zerg doesn't leave roaches in the mineral lines to defend drops, it relies on queen to take some time and in the meantime he can run back speedlings to defend (the key here is that the speedling are FAST).
For the same reason I think you see much more often blink stalkers used (very cost ineffectively) to defend drops, because you have to blink from one base to an other, and quickly reposition.
Also, I really really don't understand how having stronger cannons (w/o MSC) would promote more micro/strategy.... what micro is there behind a static cannon?
p.s. btw MSC has limited energy and a very high cost in gas
you *can* play around the MSC forcing overcharges and engaging elsewhere, which seems much more interactive than marauder vs cannons
Also, the MSC does basically no damage with its standard attack, I don't think it can be a good reason to avoid marauder openings (because the marauders don't shoot up)..... come on
|
Not sure it really matters, the msc is a bad unit(design wise), balance wise its needed but it doesnt matter in the long run i want to play a fun game with good design because with good design i can use my brain.
|
On December 25 2016 02:11 Foxxan wrote:
Not sure it really matters, the msc is a bad unit(design wise), balance wise its needed but it doesnt matter in the long run i want to play a fun game with good design because with good design i can use my brain.
I have to yield to such a compelling argument
|
On December 21 2016 10:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 09:15 VHbb wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me The problem is that the carrier seems to be an a move unit atm. It's not all that interesting to watch the gameplay. You have to fix that, there needs to be a massive efficiency gap between Stats using carriers and some random master player using carriers. I am only talking about the actual usage here, not how to get there, etc.
This is it, I wish more people would recognize this fundamental problem. All "A move" units should be removed or modified so that they require skill to use.
|
Conclusion to the theory that David Kim botched DoW40K
there is a little back and forth on this thread about how much DK was responsible for DoW40K bad state after its 3rd expansion. DK arrived at Relic as a recent computer science graduate looking for any kind of job he could find at a game development company. The wheels had been set in motion by the corporate overlords to have 3 expansions in 3 years that included 4 new races and over 60 new units. The guys making those decisions were 3+ management layers above DK. They made those decisions years before DK arrived at Relic. Therefore, DK bares almost no responsiblity for the total mess that DoW40K became during the release of its 3rd expansion in 3 years. It'd be like assigning blame to the guy who installs Windows on the New York Yankees execs computers. Blaming that guy for the New York Yankees missing the playoffs this year.
On December 25 2016 00:19 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2016 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 24 2016 22:26 Foxxan wrote:
Also one thing that came to my mind, blizzard said that they will and have changed the economy for lotv, but as i see it, they didnt. They changed the mineral fields having lower minerals.
Perhaps they changed the gas aswell with lower gas?
Feels so shallow to use the sentence "we changed the economy" in this sense. Blizzard are these days using words as "epic" "great" and other stuff which is just pure pr crap.
"We have this EPIC new hero" "We have this EPIC new game" WTF. Let other people form their opinions please.... my opinion is Blizzard makes the best games in the world. And? Your comment is completely irrelevant to my quote, stop harass me.
it is relevant. the adjective "great" to describe their games is not pure crap. their games are great. with everything being microtransactions and digital purchasing consumers can now instantly voice their love of Blizzard games by spending money; Blizzard had its biggest revenue total last quarter. Millions of people agree with me and they agree with their wallets.
|
it is relevant. the adjective "great" to describe their games is not pure crap. their games are great. with everything being microtransactions and digital purchasing consumers can now instantly voice their love of Blizzard games by spending money; Blizzard had its biggest revenue total last quarter. Millions of people agree with me and they agree with their wallets.
Holy fuck. Are you for real?
I said THAT LET THE PEOPLE FORM THEIR OWN OPINION, so my point was TO STOP USE WORDS LIKE GOOD AND GREAT AND EPIC AND SO ON
Instead say " we have a new game" and let the people decide THEMSELF WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT.
Dont use "we have this epic new hero", instead "we have a new hero".
ITS A PR STUNT that is BAD AND WRONG IMO.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEATHER THE GAME IS GOOD OR BAD. ITS ABOUT ME FORMING MY OWN OPINION!
BUT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THIS DO YOU SO PLEASE JUST STOP QUOTE ME FRO MNOW ON
On December 25 2016 02:18 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 02:11 Foxxan wrote:
Not sure it really matters, the msc is a bad unit(design wise), balance wise its needed but it doesnt matter in the long run i want to play a fun game with good design because with good design i can use my brain. I have to yield to such a compelling argument
Well your arguments are really crap to say the least. And who the hell cares if cannons are a better interactive structure than the unit msc. In the end the MSC doesnt bring good to the table, THAT IS MY OPINION.
Besides i wrote arguments for why i believe so but hey if you want to ignore that and troll me go ahead but iam 100% done with you for 50 years from now on even
Infact you showed your lack of intelligence earlier than this and foolish me for giving you a chance.
|
On December 25 2016 02:20 Varbind wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 09:15 VHbb wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me The problem is that the carrier seems to be an a move unit atm. It's not all that interesting to watch the gameplay. You have to fix that, there needs to be a massive efficiency gap between Stats using carriers and some random master player using carriers. I am only talking about the actual usage here, not how to get there, etc. This is it, I wish more people would recognize this fundamental problem. All "A move" units should be removed or modified so that they require skill to use.
No, there is a place for A move units. Even with dedicated practice a person can only perform so many actions: micro, cast spells, etc. So A move units, backed by specialist units that you can show your skill with during the battle are fine.
A move units that you can form into a death ball, and then A move and watch them destroy everything are bad. With the terrible, terrible damage and hard counters this happens more than it should.
|
On December 25 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Conclusion to the theory that David Kim botched DoW40Kthere is a little back and forth on this thread about how much DK was responsible for DoW40K bad state after its 3rd expansion. DK arrived at Relic as a recent computer science graduate looking for any kind of job he could find at a game development company. The wheels had been set in motion by the corporate overlords to have 3 expansions in 3 years that included 4 new races and over 60 new units. The guys making those decisions were 3+ management layers above DK. They made those decisions years before DK arrived at Relic. Therefore, DK bares almost no responsiblity for the total mess that DoW40K became during the release of its 3rd expansion in 3 years. It'd be like assigning blame to the guy who installs Windows on the New York Yankees execs computers. Blaming that guy for the New York Yankees missing the playoffs this year. Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 00:19 Foxxan wrote:On December 24 2016 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 24 2016 22:26 Foxxan wrote:
Also one thing that came to my mind, blizzard said that they will and have changed the economy for lotv, but as i see it, they didnt. They changed the mineral fields having lower minerals.
Perhaps they changed the gas aswell with lower gas?
Feels so shallow to use the sentence "we changed the economy" in this sense. Blizzard are these days using words as "epic" "great" and other stuff which is just pure pr crap.
"We have this EPIC new hero" "We have this EPIC new game" WTF. Let other people form their opinions please.... my opinion is Blizzard makes the best games in the world. And? Your comment is completely irrelevant to my quote, stop harass me. it is relevant. the adjective "great" to describe their games is not pure crap. their games are great. with everything being microtransactions and digital purchasing consumers can now instantly voice their love of Blizzard games by spending money; Blizzard had its biggest revenue total last quarter. Millions of people agree with me and they agree with their wallets.
It's just been thrown over the internet that he was involved in DoW and Company of Heroes, from now on I'll just say David Kim is obviously unqualified based on Starcraft 2's success alone, thank you for your dedicated research man, I was wrong and I admit it, there you go.
For the record I'm not blaming David Kim on balance or effort, the game is in a great state of balance and David Kim is constantly updating us, but his changes suck dude, get over it, the game isn't dying because of the cost or the anti social nature or any of that crap, it's dying because it's just not good enough to withstand the test of time, that is a product of bad design. It's okay to me if your a DK apologist or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But, once again, nobody can claim SC2 is dying because RTS is unpopular, that's bullshit, BW even in the middle of Pacific Time has 7.2K people watching it (at peak times for BW it's usually well over 16K) compared to SC2 having 2.4K and if SoO weren't streaming it would drop down to 1.3K. That's not good no matter how you want to justify it, that means that people obviously want to watch an RTS at least on Teamliquid, but that RTS is Brood War and not SC2.
To me, that is the writing on the wall as far as David Kims qualifications are concerned, not saying I could have done any better by any means, but it's not my job to do better, it's his. If he would have designed a better game those numbers would be reversed and that's all there is to it really.
|
On December 25 2016 03:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:
It's just been thrown over the internet that he was involved in DoW and Company of Heroes,
it has. i'll add some more facts to this.
DK was born July 24, 1982. therefore, he was 25 when the 3rd and final DoW:40K expansion came out. The decision making around those expansions probably occurred when he was 21 or 22. Relic already had an existing infrastructure when he arrived. He appears no where in the credits. Therefore, he was a bit player at best at Relic during the development of DoW 40K.
thanks for bringing the DoW40K stuff up it forced me to do some digging and put some facts and logic together.
On December 25 2016 03:04 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +it is relevant. the adjective "great" to describe their games is not pure crap. their games are great. with everything being microtransactions and digital purchasing consumers can now instantly voice their love of Blizzard games by spending money; Blizzard had its biggest revenue total last quarter. Millions of people agree with me and they agree with their wallets. Holy fuck. Are you for real? I said THAT LET THE PEOPLE FORM THEIR OWN OPINION, so my point was TO STOP USE WORDS LIKE GOOD AND GREAT AND EPIC AND SO ON Instead say " we have a new game" and let the people decide THEMSELF WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT. Dont use "we have this epic new hero", instead "we have a new hero". ITS A PR STUNT that is BAD AND WRONG IMO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEATHER THE GAME IS GOOD OR BAD. ITS ABOUT ME FORMING MY OWN OPINION! BUT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THIS DO YOU SO PLEASE JUST STOP QUOTE ME FRO MNOW ON
i care a great deal about the Starcraft franchise. Brood War and SC2 are 2 of my favourite games of all time.
Regarding the use of words like "great" and "epic". Blizzard employs standard "puffing" strategies as part of marketing their product. So does 87 bazillion other American companies. I , and my clan mates in Kramerica, think Blizzard makes great games.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Puffing
"Puffing is generally an expression or exaggeration made by a salesperson or found in an advertisement that concerns the quality of goods offered for sale. It presents opinions rather than facts and is usually not considered a legally binding promise. Such statements as `this car is in good shape` and `your wife will love this watch` constitute puffing.`
including swear words in your posts does not add merit to your argument.
|
On December 25 2016 03:24 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 02:20 Varbind wrote:On December 21 2016 10:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 09:15 VHbb wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me The problem is that the carrier seems to be an a move unit atm. It's not all that interesting to watch the gameplay. You have to fix that, there needs to be a massive efficiency gap between Stats using carriers and some random master player using carriers. I am only talking about the actual usage here, not how to get there, etc. This is it, I wish more people would recognize this fundamental problem. All "A move" units should be removed or modified so that they require skill to use. No, there is a place for A move units. Even with dedicated practice a person can only perform so many actions: micro, cast spells, etc. So A move units, backed by specialist units that you can show your skill with during the battle are fine. A move units that you can form into a death ball, and then A move and watch them destroy everything are bad. With the terrible, terrible damage and hard counters this happens more than it should.
Strongly disagree. All units should be useful without direct control but all units should get extra benefit from direct control. you will never be able to micro everything perfectly, that is where game sense comes in. You have to chose what to control and when. Designing dumb units is horrible for the spectator.
There is no need to have a move units.
|
i care a great deal about the Starcraft franchise. Brood War and SC2 are 2 of my favourite games of all time. Regarding the use of words like "great" and "epic". Blizzard employs standard "puffing" strategies as part of marketing their product. So does 87 bazillion other American companies. I , and my clan mates in Kramerica, think Blizzard makes great games. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Puffing"Puffing is generally an expression or exaggeration made by a salesperson or found in an advertisement that concerns the quality of goods offered for sale. It presents opinions rather than facts and is usually not considered a legally binding promise. Such statements as `this car is in good shape` and `your wife will love this watch` constitute puffing.` including swear words in your posts does not add merit to your argument.
Dogs bark and cats they walk, says santa while giving out presents.
Thats an opinion and i love mountains very much
|
If the MSC is there to help Protoss defend, then how about they remove pylon overcharges ability to damage buildings & just let it be used vs units? We'll stop seeing the nonsensical pylon rushes in the beginning of the game that frustrate lower level players to the point where they say 'eff this game'.
I personally think not only does it look silly but it seems like its an oversight by the Blizzard team. P.O. if it has to be a thing, should only shoot units imo. But yeah i'd prefer a protoss design that doesnt rely on a bandaid solution P.O... its just realistically never gonna happen.
|
Does it surprise anyone that former cnc/dow/coh/whatever devs are involved with SC2 balance and those same people destroyed those other RTS games to the point that those games basically completely died off?
Nah, just must be a coincidence.
Best example is CnC3 when it came out had the potential to compete with broodwar/SC2. Instead, every game was spam scorpion tanks, seeker tanks, or predator tanks (the OP unit for each of the races).
Literally CnC "balance" was "whichever unit is strongest make 100% of that unit and you will win the game regardless of what your opponent is doing."
We can see echos of this with SC2 balance - mass adepts, mass ravagers, mass liberators, list goes on. Rather than re-balancing/re-designing some of the units abilities to make them have niche roles or iterate upon poor balance...with LOTV's release we saw the doubling down on adding more insane bs units to the game that can be built en masse.
Heart of the Swarm is much more superior of a game to Legacy of the Void soley for the reason that Heart of the Swarm did not focus on attack attack attack or harrassing workers.
Heart of the Swarm average game length felt to me around 20-30 minutes for an SC2 game. An epic strategic spectacle that people would watch regardless of whether it was swarmhost bullshit.
Legacy of the Void average game length feels to me around 6-10 minutes. An epic shitfest of who can suicide the most units into the opponent's harvesters (notice i use the word harvester because that's exactly how CnC games played out).
It doesn't surprise me when many former cnc devs were absorbed onto the SC2 dev team the game was pushed into this direction of faster games, and focused on "killing harvesters."
The issue now is Blizzard is 100% never willing to admit to being wrong and never will revert such huge changes to the game economy.
I love how before LOTV i warned everyone and reminded everyone that a similar economy change had taken place in CnC3 that basically killed the game and ruined it for many of the hardcore fan base.
The strange thing is these game devs apparently don't learn from other RTS developers mistakes (maybe because some of them are the same developers?) and do it again.
Another thing i really don't understand is the notion that people wanted the game to be faster or end faster, when literally everyone and their neighbor nowadays complains that the game is too fast and that it needed to be better for casual players. THEN WHY THE FUCK DID EVERYONE AGREE THE ECONOMY CHANGE WAS GOOD? IT MADE THE GAME LESS CASUAL AND MORE UNFORGIVING FOR CASUALS AND PROS ALIKE!
The 12 worker start was initially praised for making the game start faster, but people never even analyzed the mathematics or compared timings of LOTV to HOTS 6 vs 12 worker starts. No one, including developers, did the most basic of math to show for example now in every single TvP Protoss is getting their natural nexus and 3rd nexus at insanely early times compared to in HOTS.
It's not uncommon in LOTV to see a Protoss on 3 base full saturation around the same time a Zerg is which is absurd to me lol.
Anyways, i suppose i'm just pointing out that HOTS games had way more viewership and were "slower" games and if Blizzard were smart they would look at average game length differences between HOTS and LOTV and realize longer games are better for casuals, pros, and viewership.
Is it any surprise that MOBA games of LoL, DOTA, and even sometimes HOTS can have an average game length of 25-45 minutes? Or...even yet...there's another well known game that is SLOWER than SC2, MORE TURTLY than SC2, and has long game times...do you guys know what that game is? LET ME BLOW YOUR MIND...
BROOD WAR.
|
@Avilo I think some dude looked it up and David wasn't responsible for DoW.
|
So many people complaining about overcharge, so here is my handy dandy guide to beating a protoss player that has a msc in the early game: For the terrans:
1. Build your army
2. Build ONE siege tank
3. Park your army outside the protoss base so that the pylons are in range
4. Poke up with your mobile army
5. overcharge
6. Get out of range of the overcharge
7. Either stay up enough so your tank has vision or force a second overcharge
8. No more energy
9. Stim up the ramp
10.???
11. Profit
There is an alternative:
Build 2 Medivacs, send one to the main, the toss will send the mama core to overcharge
Load up your things back into the medivac while also stimming up the ramp with the other plotoon of units
???
Profit.
For zerg:
Make an evo chamber
Use the overlord outside the main to morph it into a dropper overloard
Drop 6 lings into his mineral line, the mama core will come up to defend
Run lings/roaches ecc. Into the natural
???
Profit
There you go, I just solved your game breaking dilemma of bad design and aparently invincible protoss ability
|
Haven't laddered for 2 weeks, not feeling like playing after they reverted every cool buff they gave zerg...
|
On December 25 2016 23:11 xTJx wrote:
Haven't laddered for 2 weeks, not feeling like playing after they reverted every cool buff they gave zerg...
Same here. They took away everything they gave and nerf even more (broodlords and vipers, ultralisks).
LOTV reminds me HOTS where Zerg was turned into shitty race. History repeats itself. The only thing that kept Zerg alive during hots era was superior macro and economy but in LOTV its a joke. As Avilo said-Protoss saturates on 3 bases faster or similar as Zerg, Terran gets more from mules. And Zerg has 3 fucking larva which not only slows macro but unit production too. Terran and Protoss feel more swarmy than Zerg. Not funny Blizzard, not funny.
|
On December 25 2016 22:55 icesergio wrote:
So many people complaining about overcharge, so here is my handy dandy guide to beating a protoss player that has a msc in the early game: For the terrans:
1. Build your army
2. Build ONE siege tank
3. Park your army outside the protoss base so that the pylons are in range
4. Poke up with your mobile army
5. overcharge
6. Get out of range of the overcharge
7. Either stay up enough so your tank has vision or force a second overcharge
8. No more energy
9. Stim up the ramp
10.???
11. Profit
There is an alternative:
Build 2 Medivacs, send one to the main, the toss will send the mama core to overcharge
Load up your things back into the medivac while also stimming up the ramp with the other plotoon of units
???
Profit.
For zerg:
Make an evo chamber
Use the overlord outside the main to morph it into a dropper overloard
Drop 6 lings into his mineral line, the mama core will come up to defend
Run lings/roaches ecc. Into the natural
???
Profit
There you go, I just solved your game breaking dilemma of bad design and aparently invincible protoss ability
you will never solve it because gold players complain always about everything except their race.
|
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
|
On December 25 2016 22:55 icesergio wrote:
So many people complaining about overcharge, so here is my handy dandy guide to beating a protoss player that has a msc in the early game: For the terrans:
1. Build your army
2. Build ONE siege tank
3. Park your army outside the protoss base so that the pylons are in range
4. Poke up with your mobile army
5. overcharge
6. Get out of range of the overcharge
7. Either stay up enough so your tank has vision or force a second overcharge
8. No more energy
9. Stim up the ramp
10.???
11. Profit
There is an alternative:
Build 2 Medivacs, send one to the main, the toss will send the mama core to overcharge
Load up your things back into the medivac while also stimming up the ramp with the other plotoon of units
....
....
There you go, I just solved your game breaking dilemma of bad design and aparently invincible protoss ability
Often I build the Reactor using a Rax then i swap Starport into the Reactor; that gives me 3 Medivacs. I send an empty Medivac someplace and draw the Protoss to it and then my real drop occurs with 2 other Medivacs packed with Infantry.
Usually, when I lose to Protoss its because my opponent is better than me and 10+ years younger and has better reaction times. It sucks losing to 17 year olds who've been playing the game for less than a year but its the nature of game.
|
On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community".
Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP...
Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable
There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV).
|
On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV).
You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg
|
Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life
|
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations.
|
On December 26 2016 08:21 VHbb wrote:Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life
Yeah, we should all congratulate blizzard for making a game so bad kespa teams disbanded and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers.
I want to be a positive person too. I'm happy that Life matchfixed, because now other zergs have the opportunity to be the best in the world.
|
On December 26 2016 10:22 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:21 VHbb wrote:Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life Yeah, we should all congratulate blizzard for making a game so bad kespa teams disbanded and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers. I want to be a positive person too. I'm happy that Life matchfixed, because now other zergs have the opportunity to be the best in the world.
To be fair 'and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers.' most streamers would get less viewers than boob streamers.
|
I wonder when Blizzard is going to give the hydralisk a buff so that Zerg can finally have a new unit to play with like they promised us...
In the end due to overwhelming T/P bitching all we ended up with are nerfs...and one stupidly strong infestor which isn't really that fun to play with and feels more like a gimmick. Woo hoo! This is HOTS all over again...
If you're not going to give us any new units, how about 4 larva per inject instead? It would feel great to be swarmy again...
|
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
Boing: "with the next update we buff the left engine a bit, this time it REALLY should fly straight"
NASA: "uh.. we missed the moon again, but with the next patch we promise we will make it!"
NSA: "at the moment we are sniffing data from 60% Europeans and only 40% Americans, but we are confident we can achieve a 50% sniff rate within one year"
Ford: "we have been listening very closely to the community and after 6 years we think you might have been right - we will try adding a 4th wheel to the car in the next major update to make it more stable"
|
On December 26 2016 09:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations.
Yeah, blizzard should totally create mirror army composition for all 3 races and just let players duke it out in micro war. Whoever has the best micro wins 10 out of 10 times.
Wait, Blizzard already gave us that 20years ago, warcraft2 cough ahem cough.
Sc2 is a RTS game. If you take out "strategy" what does it left with?
Not everyone playing sc2 enjoys splitting, kiting, speed boost & doom drop at multiple locations. The last time I checked, only 1 race have the all the tools to do so.
|
On December 26 2016 11:58 Qwyn wrote:
I wonder when Blizzard is going to give the hydralisk a buff so that Zerg can finally have a new unit to play with like they promised us...
In the end due to overwhelming T/P bitching all we ended up with are nerfs...and one stupidly strong infestor which isn't really that fun to play with and feels more like a gimmick. Woo hoo! This is HOTS all over again...
If you're not going to give us any new units, how about 4 larva per inject instead? It would feel great to be swarmy again...
Exactly this. If u want to make Zerg units so weak, just give us more of them. Its freaking stupid that u designed Zerg as a race with weaker units compensating it with Swarm characteristics. In LOTV u nerfed it by limiting the larva and now we have funny situation in which Terran and Toss have better economy and stronger units through whole early and midgame. So again- if u are nerfing our units again and again- just rebuff our macro and things will be even.
|
On December 26 2016 16:02 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 09:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations. Yeah, blizzard should totally create mirror army composition for all 3 races and just let players duke it out in micro war. Whoever has the best micro wins 10 out of 10 times. Wait, Blizzard already gave us that 20years ago, warcraft2 cough ahem cough. Sc2 is a RTS game. If you take out "strategy" what does it left with? Not everyone playing sc2 enjoys splitting, kiting, speed boost & doom drop at multiple locations. The last time I checked, only 1 race have the all the tools to do so.
The point is not to have mirrors, the point is to try and create interactions which are somewhat similar in mechanical difficulty overall.
I am not advocating for no strategy, but it seems clear that losses which are mainly due to strategic errors (bad scouting, not having the counter composition in time, etc) is frustrating. Again my example about vipers, i don't think anyone thinks it's fun to lose a bunch of air units because it's simply way, way harder to split these than it is to spam the viper ability 5 times. You can argue that the viper player had the superior strategy but it's irrelevant, it's still lame.
Strategy will always be a part of starcraft and that's good. But each strategy you can choose should in the best case scenario be somewhat consistenst in mechanical difficulty to the strategy the opponent has to execute to play against your choice. As i said before, it's obviously impossible to get that right 100% (because it would be a mirror in this case ) but if the gap is simply too big the game becomes frustrating.
This isn't even about the pace of the game so much,though i would actually agree that it's too fast. Especially the hyper mobility of some things should be reduced (balancing around medivacs was a huge error imo).
Overall it's mostly about spells and massing of certain units though which seems ridiculous. That's where sc2 is at its worst and these interactions would imo need the most attention because throughout its history it seems to be obvious that spamming certain spells (fungal, snipe, storm, infested terrans, forcefield, basically every powerful spell) will always be broken in this game. Air units in general also create problems, that's one thing avilo is spot on btw
|
I can say same thing about widomines, disruptors, high templars and psistorm, new tanks, liberators, ravens with both pdd and seeker missile. Same shit that vipers and its parasatic bomb. The problem is that without Vipers Zerg stands no chance vs air of Toss and Terran and mech. So nerfing vipers means zerg dead race.
|
On December 26 2016 22:33 hiroshOne wrote:
I can say same thing about widomines, disruptors, high templars and psistorm, new tanks, liberators, ravens with both pdd and seeker missile. Same shit that vipers and its parasatic bomb. The problem is that without Vipers Zerg stands no chance vs air of Toss and Terran and mech. So nerfing vipers means zerg dead race.
Yeah sure we can say the same about all kinds of game mechanics and spells. That's the point, that's the problem.
I am also not saying that vipers should ne nerfed per se, in general i want spells to be harder to spam though for sure. I don't care about specific balance points here, i want to make the design 'better' and then balance around that.
|
On December 26 2016 08:16 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV). You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg
regarding the burning house...
no other game studio ever made an RTS that made enough profit to build a house. no one else's house is in decline because every one else is homeless and they never had a house to begin with.
EA made enough profit on RTS to pay for blanket, pillow and tent.
RTS stopped being Blizzard's #1 priority more than 10 years ago and they're still far and away the best.
|
On December 26 2016 13:42 imp42 wrote:
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
diverse race RTS games almost never get fully balanced.
SC2 came out in July 2010. C&C4 came out in March 2010. How is C&C4 doing?
|
On December 26 2016 22:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:16 xTJx wrote:On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV). You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg regarding the burning house... no other game studio ever made an RTS that made enough profit to build a house. no one else's house is in decline because every one else is homeless and they never had a house to begin with. EA made enough profit on RTS to pay for blanket, pillow and tent. RTS stopped being Blizzard's #1 priority more than 10 years ago and they're still far and away the best.
Yes we got it, regarding the whole market sc2 does incredibly well as an rts game. When people are talking about the decline and problems of sc2 they talk about the esports scene and the frustarting game mechanics they see in the game.
Blizzard is bad at handling esports and the current rts team also doesn't seem to be able to produce the best starcraft game possible. We can talk about the market and the whole picture all you want, at the end of the day sc2 is/was as successful as it is/was because of the singleplayer experience. One aspect people here don't really care about though. It is hard to discuss specific examples with you because you refuse to look at these in the favor of talking about the ability of ATVI to print money. It's largely irrelevant to the discussion here though
On December 26 2016 23:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 13:42 imp42 wrote:
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
diverse race RTS games almost never get fully balanced. SC2 came out in July 2010. C&C4 came out in March 2010. How is C&C4 doing?
You can cut the "almost". There is no way the game will be truly balanced ever. That's no problem though, as long is it is close enough it's basically no issue for most people. People should focus on the fun part, does it feel fair? Does it feel fun? Does it promote the design goals we had in mind? Does it violate any rts philosphophies which might be important?
Warpgate is a good example.(i know that this will never change) Is it worth it to violate defenders advantage just so we have a unique macro mechanic? It's obvious that warpgates alone create so many problems which have to be fixed in other ways (not the best ones at that either; weaker units, msc, etc) so i have to ask WHY?
|
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative.
|
Again only your usual rhetoric. "Being happy" isn't black and white, it's on a spectrum. I am "happy" with sc2 because there is no real alternative with matchmaking and playerbase. I am not "happy" because it could be so much better if the rts team would have been better at creating a stable foundation or would be willing to create it now.
It being the best option doesn't make it an option which has no obvious flaws. It being successful in the context of rts games doesn't make it immune to criticism. Only ever talking about the money aspect is incredibly boring because it doesn't discuss the actual product/art. You investing time to tell everyone how successful ATVI is could probably also be used in a more productive way, i don't tell you to earn money in that time though because quite frankly it's an extremely stupid comment
Merry christmas
|
On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative.
lol
10/10
|
On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative.
I can't agree really. You see, Blizzard is not just selling (or licensing) a finished piece of software that just adds all the value by itself. Quite to the contrary, a very significant part of the value of the game is created by the community. Via custom maps, third party tournaments, forums, streamers, and countless people contributing content to the complete body of StarCraft for free in one way or another.
In short, Blizzard benefits greatly from the community enhancing its product. If the relationship is to be fruitful and symbiotic, then maybe we as a community are entitled to certain value from Blizzards side as well?
"just buy an alternative" really is too shallow of a statement.
|
We are humans, we like options, we like variation, we like challenges, we like to use our brain to the fullest, we like to work, if the product is worthy of our brain we can spend endless energy on it.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Weather the product are selling well and are successfull is completely irrelevant, what matters is "Does our brain like it".
And alot of people dont know what that truly means because they dont analyse the product, the thing. They dont. Its people that do just that we should listen to and people that dont we should not listen to.
Saying "i like the product, go buy somehting else" is coming from people that dont do just this so arguing with those people is 100% waste of energy.
|
Wait wait.. so if I like SC2, it automatically means that I didn't "analyze" it as a product, while since you don't like it, you did? Isn't it somewhat of a circular reasoning?
You are saying we shouldn't listen to people that don't agree with you, because they didn't think things through, while you did - I don't see much argumentation here.
Anyway, I agree that some criticism is due and it is also useful (in fact, I like this idea of Community News, and I have the feeling Blizzard is somehow listening to some of the opinions coming from the community - not all of them luckily!).. however, I'm not sure what kind of contribution you can bring to these topics if you so strongly dislike the game. It's very unlikely that SC2 will be overhauled completely (i.e. I doubt they'll change warpgate, for instance, in the next months): if you dislike the game, and you don't enjoy playing it, and your contribution is just bashing the work of someone else, I feel (personally) it's a bit empty ..
|
|
|
For the first time in years I'm spending far more time in other games then in SC2. I miss it, I play occasionally, but every game I play is just... not fun? And watching streams no longer inspires me, it just emphasizes the issues I also see in my own games. I'm still waiting for the meta to settle down, hopefully it will lead to a better game overall.
|
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans.
|
On December 27 2016 04:40 imp42 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative. I can't agree really. You see, Blizzard is not just selling (or licensing) a finished piece of software that just adds all the value by itself. Quite to the contrary, a very significant part of the value of the game is created by the community. Via custom maps, third party tournaments, forums, streamers, and countless people contributing content to the complete body of StarCraft for free in one way or another. In short, Blizzard benefits greatly from the community enhancing its product. If the relationship is to be fruitful and symbiotic, then maybe we as a community are entitled to certain value from Blizzards side as well? "just buy an alternative" really is too shallow of a statement.
the prime driver in this activity is consumers handing money to Blizzard to make the base game. without that none of the ancillary activity is possible. Blizzard can not continue to provide the infrastructure around the game without that cash. it might have been possible for someone to make a custom game like Zealot Hockey or a Custom Map without buying the game. That is highly unlikely.
the 3rd party tournaments can profit from sponsors. the streamers are in it for their own profits and you can watch this on twitch at any time. Blizzard makes their income possible via the game. and tthe prime driver of that is.... (see paragraph 1)
the fundamental relationship is consumer//vendor. Blizzard may try to sell you on some concept that consumer/vendor is not what is going on here; if you buy that line you've graduated from being a Blizzard customer to being a Blizzard mark.
On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans.
every member of the clan i'm in is satisfied with the game and they've all been playing SC1,WC3,SC2 and other Blizzard games for 15+ years. i'm the youngest and newest to Blizzard with only 15 years of playing their games.
|
On December 27 2016 09:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 04:40 imp42 wrote:On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative. I can't agree really. You see, Blizzard is not just selling (or licensing) a finished piece of software that just adds all the value by itself. Quite to the contrary, a very significant part of the value of the game is created by the community. Via custom maps, third party tournaments, forums, streamers, and countless people contributing content to the complete body of StarCraft for free in one way or another. In short, Blizzard benefits greatly from the community enhancing its product. If the relationship is to be fruitful and symbiotic, then maybe we as a community are entitled to certain value from Blizzards side as well? "just buy an alternative" really is too shallow of a statement. the prime driver in this activity is consumers handing money to Blizzard to make the base game. without that none of the ancillary activity is possible. Blizzard can not continue to provide the infrastructure around the game without that cash. it might have been possible for someone to make a custom game like Zealot Hockey or a Custom Map without buying the game. That is highly unlikely. the 3rd party tournaments can profit from sponsors. the streamers are in it for their own profits and you can watch this on twitch at any time. Blizzard makes their income possible via the game. and tthe prime driver of that is.... (see paragraph 1) the fundamental relationship is consumer//vendor. Blizzard may try to sell you on some concept that consumer/vendor is not what is going on here; if you buy that line you've graduated from being a Blizzard customer to being a Blizzard mark. Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans. every member of the clan i'm in is satisfied with the game and they've all been playing SC1,WC3,SC2 and other Blizzard games for 15+ years. i'm the youngest and newest to Blizzard with only 15 years of playing their games.
Are you satisfied with SC2 dying away from pro scene too?
|
On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans.
I wonder where do you get this "most of us" from...
Anyhow SC:BW is going quite well right now so I'm wandering why you "true fan" didn't switch back not that I could possibly understand, since I clearly am not part of the community(of whiners)..
|
On December 27 2016 09:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 04:40 imp42 wrote:On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative. I can't agree really. You see, Blizzard is not just selling (or licensing) a finished piece of software that just adds all the value by itself. Quite to the contrary, a very significant part of the value of the game is created by the community. Via custom maps, third party tournaments, forums, streamers, and countless people contributing content to the complete body of StarCraft for free in one way or another. In short, Blizzard benefits greatly from the community enhancing its product. If the relationship is to be fruitful and symbiotic, then maybe we as a community are entitled to certain value from Blizzards side as well? "just buy an alternative" really is too shallow of a statement. the prime driver in this activity is consumers handing money to Blizzard to make the base game. without that none of the ancillary activity is possible. Blizzard can not continue to provide the infrastructure around the game without that cash. [...] the fundamental relationship is consumer//vendor. [...]
I agree, you are right about prime driver and fundamental relationship. What I am saying is that Blizzard is able to charge a premium because the consumers (community) provide a lot of content that adds to the value of the game.
Blizzard takes the role of a platform provider, providing the infrastructure to connect content consumers with content producers. If, as a platform provider, you want sustainable success you better keep content providers happy. Furthermore, the content providers tend to be the experts, not the platform providers.
btw: streamers are one type of such content producers, and no, I don't think the average streamer gets paid any significant amount of money. For every professional streamer able to live off twitch there are hundreds not earning anything at all. And even for professional streamers revenue is generated via ads (i.e. they get paid by twitch), the game is just a medium.
It's debatable which side profits more. Streamers getting a medium from Blizzard for only 60$, or Blizzard getting lots of publicity for their games from streamers.
You can find the answer to this question by looking at who pays whom, sponsorship being the second income stream for streamers. So, "how do you know Blizzard pays streamers to promote their content?" you ask. Easy, I can tell by looking at his face when a streamer talks very positively about a game and pretends to be excited when in fact he is not.
|
On December 27 2016 05:32 Foxxan wrote:
We are humans, we like options, we like variation, we like challenges, we like to use our brain to the fullest, we like to work, if the product is worthy of our brain we can spend endless energy on it.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Weather the product are selling well and are successfull is completely irrelevant, what matters is "Does our brain like it".
And alot of people dont know what that truly means because they dont analyse the product, the thing. They dont. Its people that do just that we should listen to and people that dont we should not listen to.
Saying "i like the product, go buy somehting else" is coming from people that dont do just this so arguing with those people is 100% waste of energy.
On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans.
Guys, for real? I like how you just state that BW, WoL, first osl, gsl, w/e was "better" because more people liked/played it, then compare it to LotV (for instance), then make the most obvious (yet, superficial and arguable) conclusion, call this "analysis" and then tell everyone else they are "not true fans" not even worth your time along with throwing accusations at blizzard in "not supporting the scene"/"bad design choices"/"pros retiring" or w/e.
It will amuse you but game being popular back then may not be a direct circumstance of it being "ultimately better" than a present-day version. There is no (objective) definition of "being better" especially in terms of art (which games obviously belong to). People tend to make choices (whether to play/do something or not) according to given circumstances, which include: time they live in, their surroundings, their previous experience, alternative choices, their experience with alternative choices, their expectations based on thier experience of alternative choices and this list goes on and on. This is not as simple as "this is just a betah gaem so i gona play it". These choices are always irrational.
There is no more simplier way to "analyse" something than 1) take something successfull from the past 2) take something not-so-successfull from the present 3) point out something that distinguishes these two (limited unit selection, wargate) 4) blame that for being the core problem that lead to a failure 5) think you are smart because you "analysed" all of that 6) wonder why couldn't everyone understand these simple things.
But the truth is everything is not that simple. Changing protoss core design, removing "badly designed" MC or w/e is worth mentioning (and i do agree with that to some extent), but is that gonna drastically change the situation? I highly doubt that. As it was mentioned numerous times there are far more serious issues with RTS genre/gaming community. Issues that evolve constantly and rapidly (intense growth of the market, change of tastes etc etc), issues we cannot yet "analyse"/"take for granted"/"evaluate". And i doubt will ever be able to.
While i, myself, do not agree with what blizzard is doing to the game and my main complaint was always "not letting meta to settle", i do enjoy the game to a great extent. I truly cherish RTS because of the unique experience it offers: A feeling of total control of the game and responsibility for your every move that leads to a unlimited skill-ceiling. RTS establishes the only true connection to your units. They are not given to you by anyone. It's you who gathered the resourses, built the production facility, built them, sent them to death. No other game can deliver that and everytime i select a group of newly warped stalkers and start to move them around i feel accomplished, just by that. And this experience could not be ruined by anything as long as its true RTS which SC2 definitely is.
|
On December 27 2016 12:28 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans. I wonder where do you get this "most of us" from... Anyhow SC:BW is going quite well right now so I'm wandering why you "true fan" didn't switch back not that I could possibly understand, since I clearly am not part of the community(of whiners)..
You don't care about the pro scene. The "whiner" here is a 10 times masters league, just for reference.
|
On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
...
No, it's people like you that are not.
I even think that Blizzard is paying too much attention to people that don't like the game, patching the game to try and please them.
Thing is, each time they patch something major that these people are ranting about, these same people, instead of just saying "wow, nice", find something else to rant about. Simply because what they focus on at any given time is just an excuse they find to not liking the game, and is not relevant in any way.
Force field, warp in, bunker build time, larva inject, worker pairing : there will always be something that they'll call the devil in the game, something that is "ruining the game" for them, but change it and they ll find something else.
Because they don't find the game fun, but would like their opinion to be a fact and have a solid material proof that the game can't be fun to anyone.
But guess what? that's just your opinion, what am I saying? it's not even a effing opinion it's just your taste.
You're just like someone that doesn't like oysters and goes to anyone that actually eat oyster and try to convince them that oysters are disgusting.
Just like what you like, don't try and force people to like the same things as you.
Blizzard should have accepted the fact that some people would dislike sc2 no matter what and focused on people that like the game instead, it would have been a faster way to make the game better.
For instance, this community feedback thread on TL.net have been a total garbage for years, cause only 20% of people on this site actually play the game. Each times DK says something, you have the same people jumping on the thread, listing their pathetic thoughts as if it were the community's.
Because they all come up with different analysis and opinions, which are incompatible 90% of the time, but they still call themselves the community.
So, let's keep it simple : you don't play the game, you're not the community, go play something else, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
|
Apparently the game design is a completely subjective thing now. Nobody can question it or state its problems because we cannot "prove" it. The fact that they tried to force SC2 in Korea and it just failed spectacularly also doesn't mean anything. It's just because "koreans are weird" (yes, I have read this "justification"). It has nothing to do with the game, guys, just move along.
|
On December 27 2016 21:41 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 05:32 Foxxan wrote:
We are humans, we like options, we like variation, we like challenges, we like to use our brain to the fullest, we like to work, if the product is worthy of our brain we can spend endless energy on it.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Weather the product are selling well and are successfull is completely irrelevant, what matters is "Does our brain like it".
And alot of people dont know what that truly means because they dont analyse the product, the thing. They dont. Its people that do just that we should listen to and people that dont we should not listen to.
Saying "i like the product, go buy somehting else" is coming from people that dont do just this so arguing with those people is 100% waste of energy. Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
Most of us followed SC2 and broodwar for years, we watched streamers, tournaments, epic GSL finals, epic Proleague games, had our favorite players, made friends related to the game, and we're mad because Blizzard never cared about making the game good and it all went to shit.
The "this game is just a product" and "you're mad because of a few changes" people don't even understand what Starcraft means to true fans. Guys, for real? I like how you just state that BW, WoL, first osl, gsl, w/e was "better" because more people liked/played it, then compare it to LotV (for instance), then make the most obvious (yet, superficial and arguable) conclusion, call this "analysis" and then tell everyone else they are "not true fans" not even worth your time along with throwing accusations at blizzard in "not supporting the scene"/"bad design choices"/"pros retiring" or w/e. It will amuse you but game being popular back then may not be a direct circumstance of it being "ultimately better" than a present-day version. There is no (objective) definition of "being better" especially in terms of art (which games obviously belong to). People tend to make choices (whether to play/do something or not) according to given circumstances, which include: time they live in, their surroundings, their previous experience, alternative choices, their experience with alternative choices, their expectations based on thier experience of alternative choices and this list goes on and on. This is not as simple as "this is just a betah gaem so i gona play it". These choices are always irrational. There is no more simplier way to "analyse" something than 1) take something successfull from the past 2) take something not-so-successfull from the present 3) point out something that distinguishes these two (limited unit selection, wargate) 4) blame that for being the core problem that lead to a failure 5) think you are smart because you "analysed" all of that 6) wonder why couldn't everyone understand these simple things. But the truth is everything is not that simple. Changing protoss core design, removing "badly designed" MC or w/e is worth mentioning (and i do agree with that to some extent), but is that gonna drastically change the situation? I highly doubt that. As it was mentioned numerous times there are far more serious issues with RTS genre/gaming community. Issues that evolve constantly and rapidly (intense growth of the market, change of tastes etc etc), issues we cannot yet "analyse"/"take for granted"/"evaluate". And i doubt will ever be able to. While i, myself, do not agree with what blizzard is doing to the game and my main complaint was always "not letting meta to settle", i do enjoy the game to a great extent. I truly cherish RTS because of the unique experience it offers: A feeling of total control of the game and responsibility for your every move that leads to a unlimited skill-ceiling. RTS establishes the only true connection to your units. They are not given to you by anyone. It's you who gathered the resourses, built the production facility, built them, sent them to death. No other game can deliver that and everytime i select a group of newly warped stalkers and start to move them around i feel accomplished, just by that. And this experience could not be ruined by anything as long as its true RTS which SC2 definitely is.
I'm not comparing it to older games, i'm saying that SC2 always had the potential to be much more, but Blizzard never considered the directions the community gave them, they just do whatever to the balance.
Look at this patch now. Who the hell thinks carrier is a fun unit to see in the game? It adds nothing but amove control and forces zerg to all in, because "you shouldn't let them get too many".
And what about turtle mech? Does anyone enjoy a 30 minute game where the not turtling player just tries to slowly kill their opponent until the tank count is low enough to be engaged?
The viper design in LotV was specifically to prevent both this situations, and now they're going backwards? I just don't get how people can be ok this. This patch seems more like an attempt to fully kill the game than fixing it.
|
On December 27 2016 22:06 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
... No, it's people like you that are not. I even think that Blizzard is paying too much attention to people that don't like the game, patching the game to try and please them. Thing is, each time they patch something major that these people are ranting about, these same people, instead of just saying "wow, nice", find something else to rant about. Simply because what they focus on at any given time is just an excuse they find to not liking the game, and is not relevant in any way. Force field, warp in, bunker build time, larva inject, worker pairing : there will always be something that they'll call the devil in the game, something that is "ruining the game" for them, but change it and they ll find something else. Because they don't find the game fun, but would like their opinion to be a fact and have a solid material proof that the game can't be fun to anyone. But guess what? that's just your opinion, what am I saying? it's not even a effing opinion it's just your taste. You're just like someone that doesn't like oysters and goes to anyone that actually eat oyster and try to convince them that oysters are disgusting. Just like what you like, don't try and force people to like the same things as you. Blizzard should have accepted the fact that some people would dislike sc2 no matter what and focused on people that like the game instead, it would have been a faster way to make the game better. For instance, this community feedback thread on TL.net have been a total garbage for years, cause only 20% of people on this site actually play the game. Each times DK says something, you have the same people jumping on the thread, listing their pathetic thoughts as if it were the community's. Because they all come up with different analysis and opinions, which are incompatible 90% of the time, but they still call themselves the community. So, let's keep it simple : you don't play the game, you're not the community, go play something else, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah i don't play this game, just 9 times masters in this account: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/445819/2/xTJx/
|
Comparing BW succes to sc2 situation is stupid. Broodwar flourished in time when only 2 multiplayer games were worth to be called esports games- BW and Quake III. There was no moba games and no market of massive multiplayer games. Different times, different circumstances. Stop comparing those two as at the time BW was basically the only rts that mattered.
|
On December 27 2016 23:03 hiroshOne wrote:
Comparing BW succes to sc2 situation is stupid. Broodwar flourished in time when only 2 multiplayer games were worth to be called esports games- BW and Quake III. There was no moba games and no market of massive multiplayer games. Different times, different circumstances. Stop comparing those two as at the time BW was basically the only rts that mattered.
You do realize that BW essentially created an esport scene that was watched by millions in national television out of thin air, don't you? This is definitely no easy task, my friend. SC2, on the other hand, had all the infrastructure already set up. It's true that it had more competition, but people conveniently forget that BW started out of nothing. Btw, If we go by stream numbers in afreeca, BW is a lot bigger than SC2 right NOW, how do you rationalize that my friend?
|
On December 27 2016 22:06 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 08:05 xTJx wrote:
People that are supporting Blizzard can't be called part of the community.
... [...] Blizzard should have accepted the fact that some people would dislike sc2 no matter what and focused on people that like the game instead, it would have been a faster way to make the game better. [...]
A good point. I can hear the marketing guy though: "but doing so will lose sales...!" *
* which is why such decisions must be made by people who care about the game rather than people who care about the numbers.
|
BW is bigger only in Korea my friend. Sad but true. I'm 36 year old. I played BW too hardcore and i loved it. I never denied BW its place in history. But seems to me thst u don't understand that WOL premiere in 2010 gave esports overall a second life. Just ask anyone involved in esports then. Maybe in Korea there was existing infrastructure for starcraft esport but i don't think it was a case in US or EU. The thing is both titles are great. And both are different games in the same time. Comparing them is not valid and accurate. Me for example- i love them both.
|
Thanks to david, the cyclone buff was needed.
so much fun to play against proxy cyclone as protoss, its very vell balanced.
Its pretty fun as well to play vs zerg, i can go carrier every game now, no other builds viable.
speaking off death ball terran can mass liberators, that beats every unit except the very good designed tempest that is not completly useless. gj david, i see why sc2 is so successful
|
On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative.
Does anyone know of an alternative that is more HotS-esque? Because if you do, please let me know. I've only gotten more and more frustrated with LotV since it was released and there was practically no one to play against in HotS. But unless I'm missing something, there are no good rts games left to play (Brood War doesn't work on my OS, sadly, or I would give it a try again.)
|
On December 29 2016 15:56 feanaro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 23:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative. Does anyone know of an alternative that is more HotS-esque? Because if you do, please let me know. I've only gotten more and more frustrated with LotV since it was released and there was practically no one to play against in HotS. But unless I'm missing something, there are no good rts games left to play (Brood War doesn't work on my OS, sadly, or I would give it a try again.)
What OS are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
