Happy New Year everyone! We have a short update this week, but there are a few things we wanted to bring up or respond to.
Hydralisks It’s looking like it would be good to do a small buff to Hydralisks, and a health buff seems like the first step we should try. Let’s start discussing a +10 health to hydralisks, and go from there. Let’s discuss if we should do a base Hydra health buff or an upgrade that buffs the health. Tournaments and balance Tournaments have started going this year, so we should look for any “absolute must” balance changes that need to happen. We definitely see the concerns such as early/mid game PvT right now, but we’d like to strike a good balance between giving players enough time to adjust to new strategies vs. stepping in to make balance changes.
Map Pool We also noticed that there were many discussions around how we picked the maps for GSL, and wanted to clear up this misunderstanding. GSL has been picking what is right for their own map pool for a long time now, and we have no intention of forcing GSL to use specific maps including any of the ladder maps. We believe GSL is a strong partner that really knows the Korean pro scene well, and are confident that they can and will make the right calls on the map choices in order to make the GSL as awesome as possible.
And also to note, we’re not going to be carrying over the off-season maps into this season. The new maps that we announced last month will go into Season 1 in less than 2 weeks.
As we’ve discussed before, we will be going with all new community maps and cut the oldest maps from the pool before the off season pool. So the actual maps will be:
We hope you enjoy the new map pool, and be sure to check out GSL today which is starting in just a few hours!
UPDATE JAN 10 Hey everyone, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to the Season 1 map pool based on your feedback.
The proposed changes looked to be rotating out Galactic Process, New Gettysburg, and Apotheosis with Belshir Vestige, Newkirk Precinct, and Cactus Valley.
We wanted to remind people once more that just complaining without solutions isn't helpful, so if the majority of you don't believe these specific maps would be the best, please make suggestions from the existing maps that have been used on the ladder in the past because keeping the brand new map count to 4 is important.
Please let us know your thoughts, so that we can make a decision rather quickly.
Personally I am a bit concerned for a hydralisk buff regarding PvZ. I really do believe hydra/ling/bane compositions currently are quite strong.
I would perhaps consider buffing the armor by +1 or something so that marines are weaker against them or zerglings, if we want a ZvT or ZvZ target specific buff.
On January 07 2017 09:12 TheoMikkelsen wrote: Personally I am a bit concerned for a hydralisk buff regarding PvZ. I really do believe hydra/ling/bane compositions currently are quite strong.
I would perhaps consider buffing the armor by +1 or something so that marines are weaker against them or zerglings, if we want a ZvT or ZvZ target specific buff.
I like this idea, hopefully they consider it
PtitDrogo quote on reddit : "Hey guys Protoss doesn't look too good in PvT right now, so here's +10 hp to hydralisks and apotheosis back in the map pool so that it sucks vs Zerg aswell :')"
I play Zerg so I think the Hydralisks buff is good. Not too much so it is fine. Currently, Hydras are just too fragile as you always want to add Roaches to tank the damages.
About PvT, I think P needs a bit of buff. The whole Widow Mines + Liberators are just too strong as Stalkers will be never able to kill the Liberators fast enough due to the Mines or vice versa. Maybe buff health or attack of Stalkers a bit would help.
That overview for Abyssal is outdated! Also, when I get back home I can probably make sure to get up to date overviews for both Abyssal & Honorgrounds! =)
Stop buffing Zerg and Terran. and Give Protoss the Right Buffs. Blink DT was a horriable idea and only made Protoss weaker overall when the other 2 races got big buffs. I don't know where your minds are at. But you should be doing something with protoss to some extent. No idea why we're re buffing zerg again? All you ever care about is Terran and Zerg every damn Patch.
Once in LoTV beta adepts was strong ever since Protoss is weak brittle race and most of the players I talk to agree on that first of all. I don't know where you get your feedback, But I know protoss is the least played race for some time now and the other races bias drown out what Really Need to be Balanced and fixed. Cyclone all is broken vs Protoss, Liberator range there no Real answer for... Nerfed Tempest supply and Carrier (for no reason or logic). The Community wants all the 3 races to be balanced not just 1 or 2. Thanks, Jason
On January 07 2017 08:53 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Tournaments and balance Tournaments have started going this year, so we should look for any “absolute must” balance changes that need to happen. We definitely see the concerns such as early/mid game PvT right now, but we’d like to strike a good balance between giving players enough time to adjust to new strategies vs. stepping in to make balance changes.
Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
On January 07 2017 08:56 ArtyK wrote: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy these maps back in the pool whyyy, they really really want 3 rax reaper to be a thing for another 3 months before finally nerfing it?
Not sure how they can make hydras viable in zvt without breaking zvp, i think they should give up on that. Maybe give them 6 range by default.
After taking a look at the maps, it seems like Galactic will be the only map where 3 rax reaper will be the way to go, and may be apotheosis will be a map for potential proxied 3 rax reaper.
At first I was worried but then I saw that on most of those maps there is a ramp between the third and the natural, which means that 3 rax reaper won't be that viable on those. I mentioned the exclusions. I could be wrong, but with those maps it seems like Overgroth, there is no easy way into the base or the natural, so only 2 places (which are quite close) must be checked with ovies to prevent it. I'm not sure about 3 rax reaper TvT, but I thing there are builds in TvT which keeps you safe against it.
On January 07 2017 08:56 ArtyK wrote: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy these maps back in the pool whyyy, they really really want 3 rax reaper to be a thing for another 3 months before finally nerfing it?
Not sure how they can make hydras viable in zvt without breaking zvp, i think they should give up on that. Maybe give them 6 range by default.
After taking a look at the maps, it seems like Galactic will be the only map where 3 rax reaper will be the way to go, and may be apotheosis will be a map for potential proxied 3 rax reaper.
At first I was worried but then I saw that on most of those maps there is a ramp between the third and the natural, which means that 3 rax reaper won't be that viable on those. I mentioned the exclusions. I could be wrong, but with those maps it seems like Overgroth, there is no easy way into the base or the natural, so only 2 places (which are quite close) must be checked with ovies to prevent it. I'm not sure about 3 rax reaper TvT, but I thing there are builds in TvT which keeps you safe against it.
With paladino thats 3 maps for 3 rax reaper, and that's too much in one map pool. Anyway my point is nerf the 3 rax so we can keep map diversity without having an autowin build on half the map pool in tvz. Hell i can't remember the last time i've seen byun uthermal or kelazhur lose with it...
The return of Galactic Process, Apotheosis and New Gettysburg has to be a joke right. Not like two of them are very clearly unbalanced in at least one match up.
On January 07 2017 10:35 imre wrote: The return of Galactic Process, Apotheosis and New Gettysburg has to be a joke right. Not like two of them are very clearly unbalanced in at least one match up.
all of them are very lopsided, that was the theme of that terrible map pool
Back at home now - Here are these two maps overviews that are up to date. Matthy if you feel like updating your post feel free! =) Excited to have two of my maps on ladder next season! ^_^
Really disappointing to see those maps return to the map pool.
This game feels absolutely stale reusing wol/hots maps for this season and then bringing back basically the map pool we just had + a few new ones for the next...
Honestly, the map pool has been boring for a long time and it's a large part of why I and several of my friends have been playing much less.
Theres a whole community of amazing mappers out there. Utilize them...
edit: at least I know where my 3 vetoes are going automatically.
On January 07 2017 08:56 ArtyK wrote: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy these maps back in the pool whyyy, they really really want 3 rax reaper to be a thing for another 3 months before finally nerfing it?
Not sure how they can make hydras viable in zvt without breaking zvp, i think they should give up on that. Maybe give them 6 range by default.
After taking a look at the maps, it seems like Galactic will be the only map where 3 rax reaper will be the way to go, and may be apotheosis will be a map for potential proxied 3 rax reaper.
At first I was worried but then I saw that on most of those maps there is a ramp between the third and the natural, which means that 3 rax reaper won't be that viable on those. I mentioned the exclusions. I could be wrong, but with those maps it seems like Overgroth, there is no easy way into the base or the natural, so only 2 places (which are quite close) must be checked with ovies to prevent it. I'm not sure about 3 rax reaper TvT, but I thing there are builds in TvT which keeps you safe against it.
On January 07 2017 08:56 ArtyK wrote: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy these maps back in the pool whyyy, they really really want 3 rax reaper to be a thing for another 3 months before finally nerfing it?
Not sure how they can make hydras viable in zvt without breaking zvp, i think they should give up on that. Maybe give them 6 range by default.
After taking a look at the maps, it seems like Galactic will be the only map where 3 rax reaper will be the way to go, and may be apotheosis will be a map for potential proxied 3 rax reaper.
At first I was worried but then I saw that on most of those maps there is a ramp between the third and the natural, which means that 3 rax reaper won't be that viable on those. I mentioned the exclusions. I could be wrong, but with those maps it seems like Overgroth, there is no easy way into the base or the natural, so only 2 places (which are quite close) must be checked with ovies to prevent it. I'm not sure about 3 rax reaper TvT, but I thing there are builds in TvT which keeps you safe against it.
Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer. Buff the observer.
A sight bonus for obs while stationary would be nice, would help spotting early drops/libs. Phoneix base damage 5->6 would also allow them to be more useful stopping drops and libs, but I'm not sure making skytoss even better is the way to go. Protoss have a really hard time keeping air control(killing libs, medivacs) early in pvt.
Hydra HP buff is muddles its identity. Tanky damage dealer is the roach. Give the hydra more DPS so players feel rewarded for taking the risk of making a fragile unit.
On January 07 2017 09:59 Solar424 wrote: Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
That is how Blizzard works. "Omg the 4 gate is killing Terrans? Immediately nerf it!"
"Ahh the 1-1-1 is destroying Protoss, meh, Protoss will figure it out eventually."
Suggestion: remove detection from scan. Ubiquitous and instant detection gives a unique huge advantage to terran and effectively removes dts or burrow.
I am surprised that Swarm Hosts are not addressed. You can not play mech at all in TvZ outside of cyclone/hellbats all-ins due to Swarm Hosts but I guess that is fine? Maybe you should grey out the build tank button in TvZ to help casual players?
Regarding buffing Hydra hit point I think it is better to decrease liberator ground attack so that it 2-shots Hydras and 3 shots stalkers. This would solve problems in both TvZ and TvP without introducing problems in PvZ, something a Hydra buff would likely do.
On January 07 2017 17:33 MockHamill wrote: I am surprised that Swarm Hosts are not addressed. You can not play mech at all in TvZ outside of cyclone/hellbats all-ins due to Swarm Hosts but I guess that is fine? Maybe you should grey out the build tank button in TvZ to help casual players?
Regarding buffing Hydra hit point I think it is better to decrease liberator ground attack so that it 2-shots Hydras and 3 shots stalkers. This would solve problems in both TvZ and TvP without introducing problems in PvZ, something a Hydra buff would likely do.
I actually like the Liberators damage reduction idea. Thumbs up!
I hope they replace one of the old maps with the GSL map that will be introduced in the ro16.
Glad that they did not give up on the hydra, the redesign to a core unit was not complete. Please don't make it another upgrade for +10 health. Would've liked a hive tech hunter killer upgrade, but for +10 health just make it a buff.
Hopefully they will look more at PvT, but I have no idea how to fix it tbh. Liberators requiring a tech lab always seemed like a good idea to me though.
On January 07 2017 09:16 Vutalisk wrote: I play Zerg so I think the Hydralisks buff is good. Not too much so it is fine. Currently, Hydras are just too fragile as you always want to add Roaches to tank the damages.
About PvT, I think P needs a bit of buff. The whole Widow Mines + Liberators are just too strong as Stalkers will be never able to kill the Liberators fast enough due to the Mines or vice versa. Maybe buff health or attack of Stalkers a bit would help.
#MakeStalkersGreatAgain :D
Hydralisk is a glass-cannon by definition, it is supposed to be fragile by design, so that you do not just mass 1unit, 1-A and it overpowers everything in every matchup. Hydras are supposedly to require meat support to tank for them while they deal billions of dps from backline. When exposed, they should die. Just like marines are not supposed to take baneling hits. This is what we call good design.
Well, I suppose that balance is dead with this brain-dead blizzard's team. Guess the hydra 10hp buff must be really needed to compensate for the tank buff.
On January 07 2017 16:54 Haukinger wrote: Suggestion: remove detection from scan. Ubiquitous and instant detection gives a unique huge advantage to terran and effectively removes dts or burrow.
damn, what did u smoke dude xD do you even tried terran?
Disgusting map pool. As always though. At least this is the only thing blizzard being consistant with. But wait! Whom am i kidding? Worst balance and design ideas also belong to them! wohoo!
Whatever you want to do, David Kim, as long as you are happy, then the rest doesn't matter, eh? Seriously, after 6 years, this guy and his team are still struggling to make some reasonable changes. At first, Starcraft 2 was an embryo full of possibilities of greatness. After its birth, its competitive game play and new features seemed to promise a bright future. However, it wasn't born without flaws. Thus, to address existing congenital issues, the balance team brought in their creativity and the passion of "cool" features. The first few courses of treatment were generally successful. The child became stronger and its influence grew significantly. The health status of the Starcraft 2 was stable in the end of Heart of the Swarm, and he medical team seemed to be contented with the situation. Things took a downhill path in 2015, when the team was no longer satisfied with the child's competence. They strived for a "stronger" and "faster" version. Within limited amount of time, experimental enhancers (changes to the macro-game and old units, as well as new units such as adept, disruptor, liberator and cyclone) were introduced to the child without sufficient testing. The product is what we see today--a Frankenstein. Now it is the time for this mutated champion to demonstrate its greatness to e-sport. Whether this creation of mad science gains more popularity and acceptance around the world, we community know. Hopefully (but not very likely), the balance team are also aware of the situation.
That's pretty dissapointing community feedback. To be honest I can't even call it a feedback as it doesn't adress shitloads of things that community was calling to adress. There's no word about carriers which are imba as hell, no word about 3 rack reapers, about OP Ravens, or even Swarmhosts. I mean... is Dev Team on vacation or something?
Well this doesn't make any sense. They picked the worst maps of the previous season. I still have nightmares of flying units doing dumb stuff in new gettys.
Also redesign of the reaper and nerf of the pylon rush aren't in order?
Honestly when they talked about PvT I thought that they meant the pylon rush and the oracle having no real counter anymore.
Also Blizzard should adapt the ladder to the GSL maps and not the way around. GSL chooses the best maps but players want to play on the same maps as tournaments.
On January 07 2017 21:05 Nerchio wrote: WHY DO WE HAVE TO PLAY ON THE SAME MAPS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
Because new maps would require having people actually working on the multi. But because that doesn't generate money anymore, blizz doesn't care anymore.
More seriously, pretty pointless feedback. The hydra buff makes no sense (mech is already terrible and the buff will make it atrocious, while both skytoss and skyterran will still be broken against zerg and a hydra combat shield won't really help).
The insane strength of skyterran and skytoss that forces an insanely strong viper that invaldiates ground mech while forcing mech players to turtle up to skyterran is a dumb and boring dynamic. No word about that whatsoever. SH bullshit : no word about that whatsoever. Liberator/tank combo in PvT : no word about that whatsoever.
I'd really like some maps with a nice bright tileset pls. Something happy, beachy, sandy grassy. Abyssal reef is cool. I am super sick of the dark-asteroid-with-metal-platforms tiles
On January 07 2017 21:22 FvRGg wrote: I'd really like some maps with a nice bright tileset pls. Something happy, beachy, sandy grassy. Abyssal reef is cool. I am super sick of the dark-asteroid-with-metal-platforms tiles
100% agree on this.
The worst is in the 2v2 mappool and beyond, maps so dark...
On January 07 2017 21:22 FvRGg wrote: I'd really like some maps with a nice bright tileset pls. Something happy, beachy, sandy grassy. Abyssal reef is cool. I am super sick of the dark-asteroid-with-metal-platforms tiles
Would be cool to see a Shattered Temple/ Taldarim Altar coloured map again
On January 07 2017 08:56 ArtyK wrote: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy these maps back in the pool whyyy, they really really want 3 rax reaper to be a thing for another 3 months before finally nerfing it?
Not sure how they can make hydras viable in zvt without breaking zvp, i think they should give up on that. Maybe give them 6 range by default.
After taking a look at the maps, it seems like Galactic will be the only map where 3 rax reaper will be the way to go, and may be apotheosis will be a map for potential proxied 3 rax reaper.
At first I was worried but then I saw that on most of those maps there is a ramp between the third and the natural, which means that 3 rax reaper won't be that viable on those. I mentioned the exclusions. I could be wrong, but with those maps it seems like Overgroth, there is no easy way into the base or the natural, so only 2 places (which are quite close) must be checked with ovies to prevent it. I'm not sure about 3 rax reaper TvT, but I thing there are builds in TvT which keeps you safe against it.
With paladino thats 3 maps for 3 rax reaper, and that's too much in one map pool. Anyway my point is nerf the 3 rax so we can keep map diversity without having an autowin build on half the map pool in tvz. Hell i can't remember the last time i've seen byun uthermal or kelazhur lose with it...
Sorry, I thought on Paladino was a ramp leading to the natural (like on Overgrowth), but I just played it in a custom game with a reaper, and it seems like Paladino is another map for 3 rax reaper (or 2 rax reaper). It makes it 3 maps for it.
On January 07 2017 16:54 Haukinger wrote: Suggestion: remove detection from scan. Ubiquitous and instant detection gives a unique huge advantage to terran and effectively removes dts or burrow.
Uhh...
On January 07 2017 21:22 FvRGg wrote:I'd really like some maps with a nice bright tileset pls. Something happy, beachy, sandy grassy. Abyssal reef is cool. I am super sick of the dark-asteroid-with-metal-platforms tiles
I really liked the aesthetics of central protocol.
On January 07 2017 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: They should replace apotheosis, galactic process and new gettysburgh with Overgrowth, Daybreak and Dusk towers.
On January 07 2017 17:33 MockHamill wrote: I am surprised that Swarm Hosts are not addressed. You can not play mech at all in TvZ outside of cyclone/hellbats all-ins due to Swarm Hosts but I guess that is fine? Maybe you should grey out the build tank button in TvZ to help casual players?
Regarding buffing Hydra hit point I think it is better to decrease liberator ground attack so that it 2-shots Hydras and 3 shots stalkers. This would solve problems in both TvZ and TvP without introducing problems in PvZ, something a Hydra buff would likely do.
I second this. I've been hoping for this exact change since LOTV came out (something like 80 damage instead of 85, and give hydras 1 armor).
It wouldn't affect he number of shots required to kill workers, tanks, queens, infestors, roaches, disruptors, immortals, colossi, zealots, adepts, high templars...
But you wouldn't end up losing 3 stalkers to kill one liberator that already interrupts mining, simply because you didn't open stargate and didn't have blink yet. It's also an indirect buff to hydras that doesn't break tvz.
Researching +1 air would bring them back to their current strength, which means this isn't a complete nerf in the later stage of the game.
On January 07 2017 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: They should replace apotheosis, galactic process and new gettysburgh with Overgrowth, Daybreak and Dusk towers.
You mean Splitbreak and Split Towers.
"But the 40min all tech all upgrade games are so unique!"
Were the maps not created and chosen by the community? I like new maps, because each map has his own strategies. I havent played on these maps yet. Most people dont like to change their playstyle, why we need a healthy mix of standard and special maps.
When people complain about buffs and nerfs they forget that other peoples opinion matter too. Hydralisk buff was demanded by the community for a long time!
Protoss adapts slowly. We know this already! There is really no reason to complain. Protoss was the weakest at the start of hots and was the strongest at the end! Blizzard will buff/nerf if necessary (as always).
If you quit because of maps or balance. You would have quit anyway. Nobody quits because of minor changes.
On January 08 2017 01:08 todespolka wrote: Please let us behave reasonable and mature!
Were the maps not created and chosen by the community? I like new maps, because each map has his own strategies. I havent played on these maps yet.
When people complain about buffs and nerfs they forget that other peoples opinion matter too. Hydralisk buff was demanded by the community for a long time!
Protoss adapts slowly. We know this already! There is really no reason to complain. Protoss was the weakest at the start of hots and was the strongest at the end! Blizzard will buff/nerf if necessary (as always).
If you quit because of maps or balance. You would have quit anyway. Nobody quits because of minor changes.
Actually most people are pissed because of the 3 returning maps, not the new ones...
On January 08 2017 01:08 todespolka wrote: Please let us behave reasonable and mature!
Were the maps not created and chosen by the community? I like new maps, because each map has his own strategies. I havent played on these maps yet.
When people complain about buffs and nerfs they forget that other peoples opinion matter too. Hydralisk buff was demanded by the community for a long time!
Protoss adapts slowly. We know this already! There is really no reason to complain. Protoss was the weakest at the start of hots and was the strongest at the end! Blizzard will buff/nerf if necessary (as always).
If you quit because of maps or balance. You would have quit anyway. Nobody quits because of minor changes.
Actually most people are pissed because of the 3 returning maps, not the new ones...
I had a long break and started playing for 3 weeks regularly. I have no idea how these maps look or play out. Lets hope people overexaggerate.
On January 08 2017 01:08 todespolka wrote: Please let us behave reasonable and mature!
Were the maps not created and chosen by the community? I like new maps, because each map has his own strategies. I havent played on these maps yet.
When people complain about buffs and nerfs they forget that other peoples opinion matter too. Hydralisk buff was demanded by the community for a long time!
Protoss adapts slowly. We know this already! There is really no reason to complain. Protoss was the weakest at the start of hots and was the strongest at the end! Blizzard will buff/nerf if necessary (as always).
If you quit because of maps or balance. You would have quit anyway. Nobody quits because of minor changes.
Actually most people are pissed because of the 3 returning maps, not the new ones...
I had a long break and started playing for 3 weeks regularly. I have no idea how these maps look or play out. Lets hope people overexaggerate.
They are not overexaggerating unfortunately.
I usually don't veto maps because I like to practice on all maps but maybe we could all veto the maps as a protest. They would probably see stats showing it.
On January 08 2017 01:08 todespolka wrote: Please let us behave reasonable and mature!
Were the maps not created and chosen by the community? I like new maps, because each map has his own strategies. I havent played on these maps yet.
When people complain about buffs and nerfs they forget that other peoples opinion matter too. Hydralisk buff was demanded by the community for a long time!
Protoss adapts slowly. We know this already! There is really no reason to complain. Protoss was the weakest at the start of hots and was the strongest at the end! Blizzard will buff/nerf if necessary (as always).
If you quit because of maps or balance. You would have quit anyway. Nobody quits because of minor changes.
Actually most people are pissed because of the 3 returning maps, not the new ones...
I had a long break and started playing for 3 weeks regularly. I have no idea how these maps look or play out. Lets hope people overexaggerate.
They are not overexaggerating unfortunately.
I usually don't veto maps because I like to practice on all maps but maybe we could all veto the maps as a protest. They would probably see stats showing it.
we had maps in the past that literally nobody played on like secret spring, dash and terminal, central protocol or dasan station and they didn't care. boycotting those maps wouldn't do anything.
We just need hydralisk to be a counter to the cancer Carrier Blizzard made, not another zerg buff that will need reversion, enough of that.
+10 hp on hydras is too much for the balance team to handle. It's past time for them to recognize they're incompetent and just take small steps. Don't make the same mistake we saw last month.
On January 08 2017 03:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: remove one of the Oracle spells in order to even up early/mid PvT.
Jimmeh, why do you troll so much?
PvT is heavily favored toward Terran right now, not Protoss. Nearly 6 in 10 high level PvT's are won by the Terran. The only time PvT has been more imbalanced was when HOTS was released.
On January 07 2017 19:26 Alienship wrote: Whatever you want to do, David Kim, as long as you are happy, then the rest doesn't matter, eh? Seriously, after 6 years, this guy and his team are still struggling to make some reasonable changes. At first, Starcraft 2 was an embryo full of possibilities of greatness. After its birth, its competitive game play and new features seemed to promise a bright future. However, it wasn't born without flaws. Thus, to address existing congenital issues, the balance team brought in their creativity and the passion of "cool" features. The first few courses of treatment were generally successful. The child became stronger and its influence grew significantly. The health status of the Starcraft 2 was stable in the end of Heart of the Swarm, and he medical team seemed to be contented with the situation. Things took a downhill path in 2015, when the team was no longer satisfied with the child's competence. They strived for a "stronger" and "faster" version. Within limited amount of time, experimental enhancers (changes to the macro-game and old units, as well as new units such as adept, disruptor, liberator and cyclone) were introduced to the child without sufficient testing. The product is what we see today--a Frankenstein. Now it is the time for this mutated champion to demonstrate its greatness to e-sport. Whether this creation of mad science gains more popularity and acceptance around the world, we community know. Hopefully (but not very likely), the balance team are also aware of the situation.
I would say the downturn happened in 2013, but that is an amazing post.
SC2 was full of possibilities, but David made a lot of wrong turns, despite the fact the community provided him turn by turn directions.
Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
Yeah, but Oracle shenanigans isn't the reason Protoss is losing so badly in PvT. It would do nothing to even up PvT, which is why you are trolling. And dats the last two posts I see as troll posts.
On January 08 2017 05:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Jimmeh, why do you troll so much?
my percentage of troll posts is low. we can go through my last 50 if you like. there is too much air shenanigans in the game.
No point. His posts on this thread are just pure butt-hurt driven fantasy.
I quote
That is how Blizzard works. "Omg the 4 gate is killing Terrans? Immediately nerf it!"
"Ahh the 1-1-1 is destroying Protoss, meh, Protoss will figure it out eventually."
Doesn't believe that the long months of blink stalker/MSC dominance of Terrans occurred before outrage finally made Blizzard correct the balance. Such blatant bias disqualifies his opinions.
Look LIberators and widow mines are clearly not used enough. I would like to see some buffs in that direction. Also if possible on the zerg side roaches and mutalisks. Really now, do something against these protoss cheesers.
That is how Blizzard works. "Omg the 4 gate is killing Terrans? Immediately nerf it!"
"Ahh the 1-1-1 is destroying Protoss, meh, Protoss will figure it out eventually."
Doesn't believe that the long months of blink stalker/MSC dominance of Terrans occurred before outrage finally made Blizzard correct the balance. Such blatant bias disqualifies his opinions.
Sad to see Apotheosis in the map pool.
that's not me. no idea who you are quoting. but that ain't me.
On January 08 2017 05:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Jimmeh, why do you troll so much?
my percentage of troll posts is low. we can go through my last 50 if you like. there is too much air shenanigans in the game.
No point. His posts on this thread are just pure butt-hurt driven fantasy.
I quote
That is how Blizzard works. "Omg the 4 gate is killing Terrans? Immediately nerf it!"
"Ahh the 1-1-1 is destroying Protoss, meh, Protoss will figure it out eventually."
Doesn't believe that the long months of blink stalker/MSC dominance of Terrans occurred before outrage finally made Blizzard correct the balance. Such blatant bias disqualifies his opinions.
Sad to see Apotheosis in the map pool.
that's not me. no idea who you are quoting. but that ain't me.
I was arguing that you are wasting your time with him. I was quoting BronzeKnee. He seems to find it hard to view things dispassionately, it is clear that balance is not right at the moment but to claim imbalances are designed to work in favour of Terran is wrong. If it was, there would not have been the seminal article 'Welcome to ZParcraft II' by TheDwf.
On January 08 2017 05:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Jimmeh, why do you troll so much?
my percentage of troll posts is low. we can go through my last 50 if you like. there is too much air shenanigans in the game.
No point. His posts on this thread are just pure butt-hurt driven fantasy.
I quote
That is how Blizzard works. "Omg the 4 gate is killing Terrans? Immediately nerf it!"
"Ahh the 1-1-1 is destroying Protoss, meh, Protoss will figure it out eventually."
Doesn't believe that the long months of blink stalker/MSC dominance of Terrans occurred before outrage finally made Blizzard correct the balance. Such blatant bias disqualifies his opinions.
Sad to see Apotheosis in the map pool.
that's not me. no idea who you are quoting. but that ain't me.
I was arguing that you are wasting your time with him. I was quoting BronzeKnee. He seems to find it hard to view things dispassionately, it is clear that balance is not right at the moment but to claim imbalances are designed to work in favour of Terran is wrong. If it was, there would not have been the seminal article 'Welcome to ZParcraft II' by TheDwf.
Thats because those people don't even play the game, they just like to spam vitrol everywhere because they think its fun, its one of the worst things of the internet.
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
the buff for hydras are not for vT but to help deal with protoss air cuz carriers are absurd at the moment and corruptors are garbage
also hydras live vs a storm at 2 hp because of regen already
man Paladino Terminal is just tiny and awkward as fuckin a football. really not a fan of this map pool. Abyssal is also just funky - but I guess I should applaud them for breaking up the standard main/natural setup because every map can't be Overgrowth.
I am a Zerg player and adepts kind of make me want to throw up because i get owned all the time but I think they should get more shade vision, and toss needs something to keep the colossus wars in PvT from being the only option, that'll get old super quick.
On January 07 2017 20:54 Cosmos wrote: Well this doesn't make any sense. They picked the worst maps of the previous season. I still have nightmares of flying units doing dumb stuff in new gettys.
Also redesign of the reaper and nerf of the pylon rush aren't in order?
Honestly when they talked about PvT I thought that they meant the pylon rush and the oracle having no real counter anymore.
Also Blizzard should adapt the ladder to the GSL maps and not the way around. GSL chooses the best maps but players want to play on the same maps as tournaments.
You thought PvT changes should involve nerfing toss? They have a 42% winrates against terran atm, pretty sure they aren't gonna mess with oracles "having no counter".
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
the buff for hydras are not for vT but to help deal with protoss air cuz carriers are absurd at the moment and corruptors are garbage
also hydras live vs a storm at 2 hp because of regen already
Wow senpai actually noticed me! Why don't they buff corruptors to deal +damage to massive? Wouldn't that work? It seems that if indeed the +10 hp hydra buff is made to counter carriers then it won't work. 10 hp more don't mean anything in front of a fleet of interceptors, especially the very late game with 3/3 carriers However the 10 hp do compromise the later mid game if and when protoss opts for a ground composition. With some decent forcefields and well placed storms hydras die fast and expose the lurkers or whatever is supporting/backing them up. If the hp buff is also directed to give the hydra more survivability against terran, well nerf the terrans. Remember when it was terran that struggled to secure a third? How times have changed. Just dial back some liberator damage and siege tank damage. Against a line of siege tanks roaches die like little ants exposing said hydralisks, which get easily taken care of. And liberators are a bit ridiculous, a starport reactor unit that one shots workers, two shots stalkers and has a siege up time just enough so that unless your attention is right there watching the liberator, in which case you can blink and snipe it right away, it just sits there and does work. Even in lategame fights you have to set up a decent flank and literally walk around the terran army and attack from behind because attacking head on is complete suicide, maybe less for zerg because of the sheer amount of units, but it doesn't work that way when you have a limited number of expensive units. (Even a dinky stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas) My two cents from a player in plat trying to hit dia. I guess the modern definition of "scrub"
Oh yeah, and the +shields damage from widow mines just makes absolutely no sense. I get it back when there was hots protoss, but now it makes no sense. And dial back the hp, the fact that you need 2 psi storms to kill a mine, a MINE! Doesn't really make any sense to me
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
the buff for hydras are not for vT but to help deal with protoss air cuz carriers are absurd at the moment and corruptors are garbage
also hydras live vs a storm at 2 hp because of regen already
Btw Scarlett, sincerest congratulations for Nation Wars, toi bad Italy didn't fare well.
In addition to +10 HP (please god no not via upgrade)...consider reducing the damage of the liberator's ATG mode by a bit or doing some armor tag changes...
Really I think it's actually time that Blizzard took a long, hard look at the liberator's ATG mode in general...what with 3 shotting (I think it is?) stalkers and one shotting workers with minimal setup...
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
the buff for hydras are not for vT but to help deal with protoss air cuz carriers are absurd at the moment and corruptors are garbage
also hydras live vs a storm at 2 hp because of regen already
Wow senpai actually noticed me! Why don't they buff corruptors to deal +damage to massive? Wouldn't that work? It seems that if indeed the +10 hp hydra buff is made to counter carriers then it won't work. 10 hp more don't mean anything in front of a fleet of interceptors, especially the very late game with 3/3 carriers However the 10 hp do compromise the later mid game if and when protoss opts for a ground composition. With some decent forcefields and well placed storms hydras die fast and expose the lurkers or whatever is supporting/backing them up. If the hp buff is also directed to give the hydra more survivability against terran, well nerf the terrans. Remember when it was terran that struggled to secure a third? How times have changed. Just dial back some liberator damage and siege tank damage. Against a line of siege tanks roaches die like little ants exposing said hydralisks, which get easily taken care of. And liberators are a bit ridiculous, a starport reactor unit that one shots workers, two shots stalkers and has a siege up time just enough so that unless your attention is right there watching the liberator, in which case you can blink and snipe it right away, it just sits there and does work. Even in lategame fights you have to set up a decent flank and literally walk around the terran army and attack from behind because attacking head on is complete suicide, maybe less for zerg because of the sheer amount of units, but it doesn't work that way when you have a limited number of expensive units. (Even a dinky stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas) My two cents from a player in plat trying to hit dia. I guess the modern definition of "scrub"
oh balance whiners, they'll never stop until they stop losing games complitely.
I don't really know if it is a good idea to bring back Gettysburg or Galactic Process. As someone with lots of personal bias I enjoy this current map pool a lot it uses my most favorite maps in the entire game ( I am a Terran player ) I think it would be interesting to maybe use maps like Coda, Deadwing(Amazing map), Terraform and if you want old LotV maps I think Dusktowers (Though very bad map for some Zergs) was possibly the most popular and fun map in all of LotV's original maps to play on. As for the Hydralisk buff I think it is an incredible idea. It will help a lot of Zergs vs the heavy carrier army and storms. It will also be more rewarding for some players like ByuL for an example who has incredible hydralisk micro (as seen in Stats vs ByuL game 1 in IEM Gyeonggi) However I very much love the new cyclone in TvZ but I find it can break certain TvT's. Ultimately thank you Blizzard for the amazing updates and constant changes to map pool while it may not always be new I still enjoy replaying on some of the older maps (Vaani, Overgrowth, Etc) It has really been a great experience! My only complaint is towards Terran vs Protoss I find that the match up is either a stomp for the Terran or Protoss and finding close games is quite rare.
On January 08 2017 19:56 Ryu3600 wrote: I don't really know if it is a good idea to bring back Gettysburg or Galactic Process. As someone with lots of personal bias I enjoy this current map pool a lot it uses my most favorite maps in the entire game ( I am a Terran player ) I think it would be interesting to maybe use maps like Coda, Deadwing(Amazing map), Terraform and if you want old LotV maps I think Dusktowers (Though very bad map for some Zergs) was possibly the most popular and fun map in all of LotV's original maps to play on. As for the Hydralisk buff I think it is an incredible idea. It will help a lot of Zergs vs the heavy carrier army and storms. It will also be more rewarding for some players like ByuL for an example who has incredible hydralisk micro (as seen in Stats vs ByuL game 1 in IEM Gyeonggi) However I very much love the new cyclone in TvZ but I find it can break certain TvT's. Ultimately thank you Blizzard for the amazing updates and constant changes to map pool while it may not always be new I still enjoy replaying on some of the older maps (Vaani, Overgrowth, Etc) It has really been a great experience! My only complaint is towards Terran vs Protoss I find that the match up is either a stomp for the Terran or Protoss and finding close games is quite rare.
Dusk towers is the most boring map of LOTV and I really hope to never see it again. I'm a zerg player though, so I may be biased . I don't think they should bring back apotheosis because it's just fucking broken (even if it is in favor of my race). Galactic process was also quite imbalanced in terran's favor. I love the map because I just double gold and play super aggro, but I'm definitely in the minority for zerg players on that map. I also love new Gettysburg, but realize most players hate the air blockers. I guess this has been a long way of saying that I agree that they shouldn't bring back any of those maps.
I'm not a big fan of the current map pool. I really like most of the maps, but don't like them all at once because I find they are all too straightforward. It's made for a boring map pool in my opinion. However, a couple of the new maps are different enough I think it would offset that feeling if we were to keep 3 maps from the current pool. Say overgrowth, habitation station, and daybreak.
I like the idea of a Hydra buff because I am fully on board with making them a core unit, but protoss really needs some love. Hopefully we will see something in the works for them very soon!
On January 08 2017 19:29 Qwyn wrote: In addition to +10 HP (please god no not via upgrade)...consider reducing the damage of the liberator's ATG mode by a bit or doing some armor tag changes...
Really I think it's actually time that Blizzard took a long, hard look at the liberator's ATG mode in general...what with 3 shotting (I think it is?) stalkers and one shotting workers with minimal setup...
IF only it was 3 shot stalkers, it two shots them, but what really pisses me off is that once you have stepped in the circle even if you step out your unit has been "locked on" so to speak which means it'll get hit anyways
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Please oh please don't buff the hydras. Give them +1 armor or something else. Psi-Storm deals exactly 80 damage which is exactly enough to kill hydralisks. Why do they insist on buffing Zerg to counter Terran and leave Protoss in the dust? It is clear Terran needs a nerf, especiaply early to midgame. Make liberator 3 shot or 4 shot stalkers and dial back some of the armored siege tank damage. With two shot liberators and 3 shot tanks good luck breaking terran all-ins in the early to mid game. These people have their heads up their asses, buff the hydras and I'm quitting forever. I'm sure nobody cares of what I say but there a lot of protoss players out there who have the same opinion as me, even pros.
the buff for hydras are not for vT but to help deal with protoss air cuz carriers are absurd at the moment and corruptors are garbage
also hydras live vs a storm at 2 hp because of regen already
Wow senpai actually noticed me! Why don't they buff corruptors to deal +damage to massive? Wouldn't that work? It seems that if indeed the +10 hp hydra buff is made to counter carriers then it won't work. 10 hp more don't mean anything in front of a fleet of interceptors, especially the very late game with 3/3 carriers However the 10 hp do compromise the later mid game if and when protoss opts for a ground composition. With some decent forcefields and well placed storms hydras die fast and expose the lurkers or whatever is supporting/backing them up. If the hp buff is also directed to give the hydra more survivability against terran, well nerf the terrans. Remember when it was terran that struggled to secure a third? How times have changed. Just dial back some liberator damage and siege tank damage. Against a line of siege tanks roaches die like little ants exposing said hydralisks, which get easily taken care of. And liberators are a bit ridiculous, a starport reactor unit that one shots workers, two shots stalkers and has a siege up time just enough so that unless your attention is right there watching the liberator, in which case you can blink and snipe it right away, it just sits there and does work. Even in lategame fights you have to set up a decent flank and literally walk around the terran army and attack from behind because attacking head on is complete suicide, maybe less for zerg because of the sheer amount of units, but it doesn't work that way when you have a limited number of expensive units. (Even a dinky stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas) My two cents from a player in plat trying to hit dia. I guess the modern definition of "scrub"
oh balance whiners, they'll never stop until they stop losing games complitely.
Here, let me setup 2 siege tanks, a liberator and a bunch of marines on your ramp, now try breaking through with stalkers and adepts, and maybeee one immortal. Siege tanks 3 shot stalkers, liberators two shot them, non glaived adepts don't stand a chance and the immortal without the hardened shields is a slow unit that quickly gets focused down. It's easy to call me a balance whiner now that you are in superior shape, do you want me to link you the millions of posts of terran players back in HoTS who wanted to beat colossi with only marines and marauders? In the end you even got your nerf because supposedly tier 3.5 expensive massive units wear supposed to be beaten by a handful of cheap tier 1 barracks units. It's easy to forget, easy to call someone else a whiner when everything is going smooth for you, do remember however that even YOU, the terrans were in this exact position and YOU finally got your oh so pledged nerf, so please, before opening your mouth and letting nonsense come out of it please take a think of what it was like only one and a half/ two years back
On January 08 2017 21:52 GrandSmurf wrote: protoss doesnt have 1 million abusive cheeses anymore to keep the winrate at 50%. terran finally has some claws to counter their bullshit.
boo fucking hoo.
Because 1/1/1 isn't abusive? Like I told the other guy, let me setup a bunch of stuff on the ramp, and expand while leapfrogging up said ramp, try and break it with liberators 2 shotting stalkers, unapproachable siege tanks and adepts that without glaives are probably worth less than a sack of horse shit. Read what I told the other guy, about when it was Terran whining about colossi and all-ins, you guys got the nerfs you were pledging for, you even got 7 armor ultralisks because your puny marines couldn't beat an expensive (both tech wise and resource wise) unit
On January 08 2017 16:43 CursOr wrote: man Paladino Terminal is just tiny and awkward as fuckin a football. really not a fan of this map pool. Abyssal is also just funky - but I guess I should applaud them for breaking up the standard main/natural setup because every map can't be Overgrowth.
I am a Zerg player and adepts kind of make me want to throw up because i get owned all the time but I think they should get more shade vision, and toss needs something to keep the colossus wars in PvT from being the only option, that'll get old super quick.
Isn't paladino one of the bigger maps released recently?
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Here, let me setup 2 siege tanks, a liberator and a bunch of marines on your ramp, now try breaking through with stalkers and adepts, and maybeee one immortal. Siege tanks 3 shot stalkers, liberators two shot them, non glaived adepts don't stand a chance and the immortal without the hardened shields is a slow unit that quickly gets focused down. It's easy to call me a balance whiner now that you are in superior shape, do you want me to link you the millions of posts of terran players back in HoTS who wanted to beat colossi with only marines and marauders? In the end you even got your nerf because supposedly tier 3.5 expensive massive units wear supposed to be beaten by a handful of cheap tier 1 barracks units. It's easy to forget, easy to call someone else a whiner when everything is going smooth for you, do remember however that even YOU, the terrans were in this exact position and YOU finally got your oh so pledged nerf, so please, before opening your mouth and letting nonsense come out of it please take a think of what it was like only one and a half/ two years back
you're losing not because of liberators 2 shot stalkers etc. etc. believe me xD colossi was nerfed just because you've got a disruptor, so bio can kill colossi? lings eat thors on breakfast and what? stop that bullshit 'cheap units shouldn't kill expensive units' sounds ridiculous and smells like low league, just get good.
On January 08 2017 08:40 icesergio wrote: Here, let me setup 2 siege tanks, a liberator and a bunch of marines on your ramp, now try breaking through with stalkers and adepts, and maybeee one immortal. Siege tanks 3 shot stalkers, liberators two shot them, non glaived adepts don't stand a chance and the immortal without the hardened shields is a slow unit that quickly gets focused down. It's easy to call me a balance whiner now that you are in superior shape, do you want me to link you the millions of posts of terran players back in HoTS who wanted to beat colossi with only marines and marauders? In the end you even got your nerf because supposedly tier 3.5 expensive massive units wear supposed to be beaten by a handful of cheap tier 1 barracks units. It's easy to forget, easy to call someone else a whiner when everything is going smooth for you, do remember however that even YOU, the terrans were in this exact position and YOU finally got your oh so pledged nerf, so please, before opening your mouth and letting nonsense come out of it please take a think of what it was like only one and a half/ two years back
you're losing not because of liberators 2 shot stalkers etc. etc. believe me xD colossi was nerfed just because you've got a disruptor, so bio can kill colossi? lings eat thors on breakfast and what? stop that bullshit 'cheap units shouldn't kill expensive units' sounds ridiculous and smells like low league, just get good.
I'm not losing because of 2 shot stalker etc etc believe me, ok I believe you, so basically you are implying that I'm shit, fair enough then. But at least give me the benefit of the doubt to think that you're not much of a player either, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce this, but I digress. You try to be a smartass by saying that "Lings eat Thors for breakfast" well of course they do smart guy, lings are supposed to counter thors and thors are supposed to be weak to lings. The problem with colossus is that the colossus was nerfed because it supposedly dealt too much damage to units that were supposed to be eaten by the colossi (i.e. MMM compositions) The disruptor is way too unreliable and by itself it cannot guarantee an effective AoE damage, which is why, apart from PvP you see Colossi mixed in with disruptors, the former of which have become almost a compromise between a meat shield (along with gateway units) and damage dealer. Your last sentence represents the absolute oxymore and allows everyone to understand that you have not comprehended anything of what I said. With my post I wanted to communicate the fact that now you are all acting cool and denigrating the protoss players because it seems you forgot back when you whined oh so terribly because Colossi were too good, they were OP, that your MMM couldn't beat them, boo hoo.
On January 08 2017 09:22 BronzeKnee wrote: Yeah, but Oracle shenanigans isn't the reason Protoss is losing so badly in PvT. It would do nothing to even up PvT, which is why you are trolling. And dats the last two posts I see as troll posts.
no, its an honest request for a change. labelling them troll posts lowers the signal to noise ratio of the thread and can derail it as you can see we now have someone reacting to this back-and-forth by claiming a quote i never made.
I'm not losing because of 2 shot stalker etc etc believe me, ok I believe you, so basically you are implying that I'm shit, fair enough then. But at least give me the benefit of the doubt to think that you're not much of a player either, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce this, but I digress. You try to be a smartass by saying that "Lings eat Thors for breakfast" well of course they do smart guy, lings are supposed to counter thors and thors are supposed to be weak to lings. The problem with colossus is that the colossus was nerfed because it supposedly dealt too much damage to units that were supposed to be eaten by the colossi (i.e. MMM compositions) The disruptor is way too unreliable and by itself it cannot guarantee an effective AoE damage, which is why, apart from PvP you see Colossi mixed in with disruptors, the former of which have become almost a compromise between a meat shield (along with gateway units) and damage dealer. Your last sentence represents the absolute oxymore and allows everyone to understand that you have not comprehended anything of what I said. With my post I wanted to communicate the fact that now you are all acting cool and denigrating the protoss players because it seems you forgot back when you whined oh so terribly because Colossi were too good, they were OP, that your MMM couldn't beat them, boo hoo.
personally I haven't whine back in hots, just rekting braindead protosses with pure bio, dropping right on the colossi because guess what I just overmacro'd them, I bet if colossi wasn't nerfed right now you'd would be unhappy anyway.
I'm not losing because of 2 shot stalker etc etc believe me, ok I believe you, so basically you are implying that I'm shit, fair enough then. But at least give me the benefit of the doubt to think that you're not much of a player either, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce this, but I digress. You try to be a smartass by saying that "Lings eat Thors for breakfast" well of course they do smart guy, lings are supposed to counter thors and thors are supposed to be weak to lings. The problem with colossus is that the colossus was nerfed because it supposedly dealt too much damage to units that were supposed to be eaten by the colossi (i.e. MMM compositions) The disruptor is way too unreliable and by itself it cannot guarantee an effective AoE damage, which is why, apart from PvP you see Colossi mixed in with disruptors, the former of which have become almost a compromise between a meat shield (along with gateway units) and damage dealer. Your last sentence represents the absolute oxymore and allows everyone to understand that you have not comprehended anything of what I said. With my post I wanted to communicate the fact that now you are all acting cool and denigrating the protoss players because it seems you forgot back when you whined oh so terribly because Colossi were too good, they were OP, that your MMM couldn't beat them, boo hoo.
personally I haven't whine back in hots, just rekting braindead protosses with pure bio, dropping right on the colossi because guess what I just overmacro'd them, I bet if colossi wasn't nerfed right now you'd would be unhappy anyway.
I think what you're saying is that he should come with you if he wants to live.
It was easy to overmacro protoss as Terran in HOTS straight because of how mules and chrono worked back than. Actually in LOTV it's Terran plahers that whine as fuck about Protoss getting so much economy advantage thanks to pylon overcharge and chrono. Be careful. Shittalk is a weapon with two blades.
On January 09 2017 04:03 hiroshOne wrote: It was easy to overmacro protoss as Terran in HOTS straight because of how mules and chrono worked back than. Actually in LOTV it's Terran plahers that whine as fuck about Protoss getting so much economy advantage thanks to pylon overcharge and chrono. Be careful. Shittalk is a weapon with two blades.
pff it's not a problem, I have a liberator who 2 SHOT STALKERS!!! but I think even if it will be nerfed i'll be alright. whoops
You all make such a big deal of pylon overcharge. Unless someone goes mad and fills up their main with pylons you will have at most 3-4 pylons shooting at you. Have you ever tried double dropping with some marauders? Focusing the msc with marines while shooting pylons with marauders as pylons are considered armored? I do it, and I rank gold 3 as T. If, instead, you are attacking HEAD on into a protoss base and expecting to just march over it then it's your problem not mine. Ever tried walking under a siege tank? Not pleasant right? It's clear to me that we have differing opinions, and that's a good thing, in the end we must all realize that blizzard doesn't even read this and they act based on themselves solely. "If i still had the old colossus i'd still be unhappy" well, we would see about that wouldn't we? Protoss has an economic advantage? Really? Where? Try securing a third base as toss while the opponent is still on two.
On January 09 2017 05:04 icesergio wrote: You all make such a big deal of pylon overcharge. Unless someone goes mad and fills up their main with pylons you will have at most 3-4 pylons shooting at you. Have you ever tried double dropping with some marauders? Focusing the msc with marines while shooting pylons with marauders as pylons are considered armored? I do it, and I rank gold 3 as T. If, instead, you are attacking HEAD on into a protoss base and expecting to just march over it then it's your problem not mine. Ever tried walking under a siege tank? Not pleasant right? It's clear to me that we have differing opinions, and that's a good thing, in the end we must all realize that blizzard doesn't even read this and they act based on themselves solely. "If i still had the old colossus i'd still be unhappy" well, we would see about that wouldn't we? Protoss has an economic advantage? Really? Where? Try securing a third base as toss while the opponent is still on two.
overcharge isn't supposed to kill entire midgame aggression by itself it's just buy time, yes I hope they doesn't read this, impossible to balance game at each level, so scrubs and whiners are doomed to always have troubles, and it's totally normal, you don't need 3rd if opponent on 2, scout is a good thing.
I really think these community feedback updates are extremely uninspiring. I would rather have biweekly updates and get more in depth/discuss more things than what we get here. At the same time i cannot blame everything on blizzard here when everybody pretty much says everything is 100% perfect anyway. I don't know which progamers/personalities are in talk with blizzard about the game and what is being communicated there, but i hope it's more than "sc2 is better than it has ever been, nothign to improve!"
On January 09 2017 10:39 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't know which progamers/personalities are in talk with blizzard about the game and what is being communicated there, but i hope it's more than "sc2 is better than it has ever been, nothign to improve!"
Well for one thing they must not be talking about Zest. Because he basically said during his GSL interview that he can't win PvTs. We are talking about one of the best Protoss in the world. Looking at Hero's games PvT it seemed equally as bad.
Personally I don't think it's any one thing that Terran has that makes the match up insane. Usually your talking about some kind of tank liberators siege outside your third with a window mind dropping into your nat and main. Each location needs perfect micro to not take damage. Mismicro either bases defense and lose 10 probe. Mismicro the front lose your army.
I'm all for micro and counter micro. But when you have 3 simultaneous attacks where its 60/40 against you i.e. it's easier to attack then defend, your going get out unscathed 6.4% of the time.
On January 08 2017 09:22 BronzeKnee wrote: Yeah, but Oracle shenanigans isn't the reason Protoss is losing so badly in PvT. It would do nothing to even up PvT, which is why you are trolling. And dats the last two posts I see as troll posts.
no, its an honest request for a change. labelling them troll posts lowers the signal to noise ratio of the thread and can derail it as you can see we now have someone reacting to this back-and-forth by claiming a quote i never made.
That change literally makes zero sense. It is like saying that white people in America need money from the government because of slavery. Protoss is losing just a hair less than 60% of their games at a high level in PvT right now. Nerfing the Oracle would make that worse.
PvT was less imbalanced right after the release of WOL!
Sorry, i can't speak english!@@ google translate. Một nghiên cứu nhỏ về Protoss. Lotv: Ý tưởng của các bạn là làm tăng tốc độ trận đấu: Game speed: tăng ~ 30%. Unit speed: tăng ~ 40%, DPS tăng ~ 40%, và Attack giữ nguyên. Các bạn đúng, tôi thích ý tưởng này vì game cần một chút đổi mới! Cấu trúc và sự logic của game sẽ không bị phá vở. Nhưng có một vài vấn đề, bạn thay đổi không đồng bộ: Colossus: Speed: tăng 40%, Attack giãm ~20% nhưng lên +3 sẽ giảm ~ 28.5%. DPS tăng ~ 23% nhưng lên +3 chỉ tăng ~ 10% so với HOTS. Đây chỉ là những con số nếu như không làm cấu trúc game thay đổi (vào cuối HOTS gần như là cân bằng) ví dụ như bạn luôn cần 2 shot để giết benaling Và rất nhiều thứ khác rất phức tạp tùy vào nâng cấp armor! Psionic Storm: Bạn tăng tốc độ all Unit ~40% nhưng tốc độ Psionic Storm chi tăng ~30% ( 2.85s so với 4s) một nerfed ẩn cho High Templar? và bây giờ MMM đang hồi sinh với tốc độ chóng mặt, những newbie cũng có thể tiêu diệt Protoss mạnh nhất. Năm 2016 Terran vẩn chưa nhận ra ưu thế của mình cho tới khi BuyN trở lại với những Build cơ bản. Trong game có những thứ không thể tùy tiện đụng đến, 1 là HP, 2 là Attack, 3 là Armor. Mà nếu bạn đụng đến, sự cân bằng và logic trong game sẽ bị ảnh hưởng triệt để đặt biệt là thể loại game dàn trận thời gian thực. Mọi Unit đều có sự liên kết chặt chẽ với nhau. Bạn không nên cân chỉnh lại những thứ mà tốn hàng trăm Patch Change đã gần như đạt sự cân bằng vào cuối Hots mà thứ bạn cần cân chỉnh là 6 new unit Lotv ( Disruptor vs terran hoàn toàn vô dụng, nhưng vs Protoss và Zerg quyết định thắng vs thua, với 150/150 và 182s). Patch 3.8. Là một sai lầm, bạn không thể tăng Attack cho Siege Tank và tăng thời gian Cooldown để đổi lấy DPS không có sự chênh lệch nhiều lắm???? Đây là điều hết sức ngớ ngẩn, vân DPS sẽ không thay đối nhiều nhưng sự logic của game đã hoàn toàn bị phá hỏng. Trở lại vấn đề chính của topic: vấn đề không nằm ở Hydralisk mà nằm ở Liberator và Siege Tank bạn nhé ( trước đây là 3 shoot, hiện giờ luôn là 2), Carier cũng là một vất đề nhưng cần thời gian để nghiên cứu thêm. Còn về Protoss, GSL sẽ chứng minh tất cả, không một Protoss chơi cơ bản nào có thể chiến thắng Terran( trừ khi là một Protoss Super strong vsTerran medium).
On January 09 2017 17:20 CC337 wrote: Sorry, i can't speak english!@@ google translate. Một nghiên cứu nhỏ về Protoss. Lotv: Ý tưởng của các bạn là làm tăng tốc độ trận đấu: Game speed: tăng ~ 30%. Unit speed: tăng ~ 40%, DPS tăng ~ 40%, và Attack giữ nguyên. Các bạn đúng, tôi thích ý tưởng này vì game cần một chút đổi mới! Cấu trúc và sự logic của game sẽ không bị phá vở. Nhưng có một vài vấn đề, bạn thay đổi không đồng bộ: Colossus: Speed: tăng 40%, Attack giãm ~20% nhưng lên +3 sẽ giảm ~ 28.5%. DPS tăng ~ 23% nhưng lên +3 chỉ tăng ~ 10% so với HOTS. Đây chỉ là những con số nếu như không làm cấu trúc game thay đổi (vào cuối HOTS gần như là cân bằng) ví dụ như bạn luôn cần 2 shot để giết benaling Và rất nhiều thứ khác rất phức tạp tùy vào nâng cấp armor! Psionic Storm: Bạn tăng tốc độ all Unit ~40% nhưng tốc độ Psionic Storm chi tăng ~30% ( 2.85s so với 4s) một nerfed ẩn cho High Templar? và bây giờ MMM đang hồi sinh với tốc độ chóng mặt, những newbie cũng có thể tiêu diệt Protoss mạnh nhất. Năm 2016 Terran vẩn chưa nhận ra ưu thế của mình cho tới khi BuyN trở lại với những Build cơ bản. Trong game có những thứ không thể tùy tiện đụng đến, 1 là HP, 2 là Attack, 3 là Armor. Mà nếu bạn đụng đến, sự cân bằng và logic trong game sẽ bị ảnh hưởng triệt để đặt biệt là thể loại game dàn trận thời gian thực. Mọi Unit đều có sự liên kết chặt chẽ với nhau. Bạn không nên cân chỉnh lại những thứ mà tốn hàng trăm Patch Change đã gần như đạt sự cân bằng vào cuối Hots mà thứ bạn cần cân chỉnh là 6 new unit Lotv ( Disruptor vs terran hoàn toàn vô dụng, nhưng vs Protoss và Zerg quyết định thắng vs thua, với 150/150 và 182s). Patch 3.8. Là một sai lầm, bạn không thể tăng Attack cho Siege Tank và tăng thời gian Cooldown để đổi lấy DPS không có sự chênh lệch nhiều lắm???? Đây là điều hết sức ngớ ngẩn, vân DPS sẽ không thay đối nhiều nhưng sự logic của game đã hoàn toàn bị phá hỏng. Trở lại vấn đề chính của topic: vấn đề không nằm ở Hydralisk mà nằm ở Liberator và Siege Tank bạn nhé ( trước đây là 3 shoot, hiện giờ luôn là 2), Carier cũng là một vất đề nhưng cần thời gian để nghiên cứu thêm. Còn về Protoss, GSL sẽ chứng minh tất cả, không một Protoss chơi cơ bản nào có thể chiến thắng Terran( trừ khi là một Protoss Super strong vsTerran medium).
User was warned for this post
Translated:
A little research on the Protoss.
Lotv: Your idea is to speed up the game:
Game speed: ~ 30% increase.
Unit speed: increased ~ 40%, ~ 40% DPS increase, and Attack unchanged. The correct you, I like this idea because the game needs a little innovation! The structure and the logic of the game will not be disrupted. But there are some problems, you change the asynchronous:
Colossus: Speed increased by 40%, ~ 20% but Attack trending up ~ 28.5% +3 will decrease. DPS increase of ~ 23%, but only up to +3 ~ 10% increase compared to HOTS. These are just numbers without making structural changes game (at the end of almost balance HOTS) eg you always need 2 shot to kill benaling And many other things very complex, depending on the upgrade armor!
Psionic Storm: You speed up ~ 40% Unit all but speed Psionic Storm spending increased ~ 30% (2.85s than 4s) a High Templar hidden nerfed? MMM and now is reborn with breakneck speed, the newbie can also destroy the strongest Protoss. 2016 Terran yet to realize his advantage until BuyN back to the basic Build. In the game there are things that can not arbitrarily touch, 1 HP, Attack 2, 3 is Armor. But if you touch, balance and logic in the game will be affected radically game genre especially arrayed real time. Every unit has a close association with each other.
You should not rebalance things that cost hundreds Patch Change has almost reached the end Hots balance that you need 6 new calibration unit Lotv (Disruptor useless vs Terrans, Protoss and Zerg vs decided yet the winner vs loser, with 150/150 and 182s).
Patch 3.8. Was a mistake, you can not increase the Siege Tank Attack and increased time in exchange for DPS Cooldown no much difference ???? This is absurd, so DPS will not change much, but the logic of the game was completely ruined.
Back to the main issue of the topic: the problem does not lie in Hydralisks which is located in Siege Tank Liberator and you too (formerly 3 shoot, now is always 2), is also a hard problem Carier but needed time to study more. As for the Protoss, GSL will prove to all, not a fundamental Protoss players can win Terran (unless it is a Super strong Protoss vsTerran medium).
On January 09 2017 10:39 The_Red_Viper wrote: I really think these community feedback updates are extremely uninspiring. I would rather have biweekly updates and get more in depth/discuss more things than what we get here. At the same time i cannot blame everything on blizzard here when everybody pretty much says everything is 100% perfect anyway. I don't know which progamers/personalities are in talk with blizzard about the game and what is being communicated there, but i hope it's more than "sc2 is better than it has ever been, nothign to improve!"
My man, now this thread is finally back on track
Also, on an interesting side note: Didn't DK tell us that their overall goal was to patch/balance the game as little as possible? Now it suddenly feels like we're getting updates and changes as often as in Heroes of the Storm lol
On January 09 2017 10:39 The_Red_Viper wrote: I really think these community feedback updates are extremely uninspiring. I would rather have biweekly updates and get more in depth/discuss more things than what we get here. At the same time i cannot blame everything on blizzard here when everybody pretty much says everything is 100% perfect anyway. I don't know which progamers/personalities are in talk with blizzard about the game and what is being communicated there, but i hope it's more than "sc2 is better than it has ever been, nothign to improve!"
My man, now this thread is finally back on track
Also, on an interesting side note: Didn't DK tell us that their overall goal was to patch/balance the game as little as possible? Now it suddenly feels like we're getting updates and changes as often as in Heroes of the Storm lol
I am sorry but that's how i feel about these updates. It's nice to hear from blizzard but at the same time it's frustrating because in the end they don't talk about the topics detailed enough imo. You could talk about a lot of stuff every single week and quite frankly there should be enough time to do so, but if it's not possible then do these updates biweekly or once a month instead of doing the bare minimum here. I mean this:
Hydralisks It’s looking like it would be good to do a small buff to Hydralisks, and a health buff seems like the first step we should try. Let’s start discussing a +10 health to hydralisks, and go from there. Let’s discuss if we should do a base Hydra health buff or an upgrade that buffs the health.
is all they have to say about the situation? I don't get it...
Really not a word on Carriers ? I usually just sit back and giggle at the reaction those balance updates invoke, because I always felt like no matter what Blizz does there will anyways be plenty of raging - but honestly witht he carrier I find myself making one of these rage posts now. What is wrong with them ? The unit is nothing short of a joke and they do not even mention it ?! Like basically the game ends once protoss secures a 3rd base and gets his double SG Carrier production up... Is that the intended meta (for what always used to be my favorite MU, both as a player and as a specatotor) ?
Can we PLEASE do something about that ? I find it hard to believe that the Hydra buff will change much here.
On January 10 2017 02:15 junkdrop wrote: and most of all... u should keep the same tank's damage as always and maybe accelerate a bit the siege animation so that it could shoot earlier.
The entire point of the siege tank is the be already sieged. Why would you reward a terran player who is out of position by reducing the siege animation.
i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
Nooooo you are COMPLETELY wrong about overcharge, I expect to drop, kill all the probes, maybe snipe a bit of tech and run off, that's just the way midgame aggression works!
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
I said late game but you tried lol
Lol, you are such a troll, the terran has that off two base and toss can barely manage colossi in time. If you let toss get to super late game with tempest or carriers than you probably just played bad. but even then you just add in some vikings and maybe ghosts and you are good.
Sorry that you cant beat everything with mmm alone Maybe we need some more balance patches for terran?
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
I said late game but you tried lol
Lol, you are such a troll, the terran has that off two base and toss can barely manage colossi in time. If you let toss get to super late game with tempest or carriers than you probably just played bad. but even then you just add in some vikings and maybe ghosts and you are good.
Sorry that you cant beat everything with mmm alone Maybe we need some more balance patches for terran?
Sad little terran troll...
I just answered to other guy who said that libs and tanks beat colossi templar disruptor in the late game. jesus you're an idiot xD
On January 10 2017 02:15 junkdrop wrote: and most of all... u should keep the same tank's damage as always and maybe accelerate a bit the siege animation so that it could shoot earlier.
The entire point of the siege tank is the be already sieged. Why would you reward a terran player who is out of position by reducing the siege animation.
Exactly.
Reducing the Siege animation is a bad idea because it removes what makes the tank unique. Unfortunately, the incredible burst damage it does is not unique in SC2.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
I said late game but you tried lol
Lol, you are such a troll, the terran has that off two base and toss can barely manage colossi in time. If you let toss get to super late game with tempest or carriers than you probably just played bad. but even then you just add in some vikings and maybe ghosts and you are good.
Sorry that you cant beat everything with mmm alone Maybe we need some more balance patches for terran?
Sad little terran troll...
I just answered to other guy who said that libs and tanks beat colossi templar disruptor in the late game. jesus you're an idiot xD
You are such a troll, lol. You don't even try to use arguments or valid points. Don't they ban people like youa round here..?
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
Lol, you are such a troll, the terran has that off two base and toss can barely manage colossi in time. If you let toss get to super late game with tempest or carriers than you probably just played bad. but even then you just add in some vikings and maybe ghosts and you are good.
Sorry that you cant beat everything with mmm alone Maybe we need some more balance patches for terran?
Sad little terran troll...
I just answered to other guy who said that libs and tanks beat colossi templar disruptor in the late game. jesus you're an idiot xD
You are such a troll, lol. You don't even try to use arguments or valid points. Don't they ban people like youa round here..?
thanks for further proving that you're pathetic whiner. isn't you Freeborn from eu serv with 5k games and still only diamond? looking for some self-affirmation here and choose me like your victim haha.
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
Im a terran, i never a moves, thats death in every matchup. even if im maxed, 3-3, dodge all disrutpor shots, and storms, stil the toss army wins,.
You then realize that protoss can make terran not leave base whit warp prism while take third every game? Drops are kinda waste because whn you get so much medivacs n marines, the toss have observers which will spot the drop ( if the protoss are good) ghost is useless since u cant snipe templars anymore. guess how much gas it cost to make vikings + lib + medivacs? i cant afford all those + everything else i need. and my macro is under 300 unspent every game
On January 10 2017 19:14 MiCroLiFe wrote: i cant se how protoss can have trouble.. i have 2-8 in tvp right now just make disruptor templar and collosus, its extremly hard for terran do micro everythin . while protoss can basically move forward whit A move, and storm a bit.. early stages of game, drops n stuff, isnt a problem because you have overcharge that stops it.
You realize all 3techs that you mentioned (disruptor templar & collosus) are tier 3 units that requires upgrade right?
Getting all 3 requires obscene amount of gas & you just cannot afford to mass them. If you let a Protoss to get to such late game with no supply parity, then the onus is on you! Guess what, this supposedly supreme late game combo still get beaten liberators & siege tank, by a huge margin.
I bet you expect to A-move into them with marines marauders & Medivacs every single time & come out on top every time right?
some fairy tales here, siege tanks AND liberators in late tvp haha, how completely stationary terran can win a single fight at least, somewhere in plat maybe.
You are so noob, dude. Byun vs stats today in the Olimoleague, just as an example.
And all over the tournaments pro protoss fall to mmm liberator combos, which are combined with either tanks or widow mines or both. Byun vs stats today was mm tanks liberator with maybe 1-2 mines out of two bases. This is probably a bit harder to play than most terran players are used too (more than 3 unit types!), but half of your army is stationary so you end up just microing your stimmed bio, while the toss can barely move without being shot by tanks or libs and you attack in, you die to widow mines. If you dont have ranged colossus at that point you are already dead, if you do you probably just die slowy.
Oh btw you realize that a mother ship core with full energy has 4 overcharges max and that it cn only be in one place? you just drop and leave and repeat, or drop in two places. It's way easier to drop than to defend, since one pylon will insta die vs 2 medivac drops and warpins will always lose vs stimmed bio thats already there shooting at them.
Lol, you are such a troll, the terran has that off two base and toss can barely manage colossi in time. If you let toss get to super late game with tempest or carriers than you probably just played bad. but even then you just add in some vikings and maybe ghosts and you are good.
Sorry that you cant beat everything with mmm alone Maybe we need some more balance patches for terran?
Sad little terran troll...
I just answered to other guy who said that libs and tanks beat colossi templar disruptor in the late game. jesus you're an idiot xD
You are such a troll, lol. You don't even try to use arguments or valid points. Don't they ban people like youa round here..?
thanks for further proving that you're pathetic whiner. isn't you Freeborn from eu serv with 5k games and still only diamond? looking for some self-affirmation here and choose me like your victim haha.
Uh.. and where are your arguments again..? Resorting to personal attacks..?
You just prove again how much of a sad and mean troll you are.
What's your account btw? Show me your gm league then?
It doesn't really matter but argueing without arguments and resorting to insults and personal attacks makes you seem like you have no clue and are just looking for attention or trying to justify yourself for playing terran or something weird like that.
I'm trying to argue to hopefully come to some kind of idea of what we can do to improve protoss, but you are just blowing hot air and insults.
I think Blizz has to solve an unsolved problem with Terran race. Terran is a race relying a lot on mechanics, so better terran player you are better mechanics you have. No data here, but I m pretty sure in the lowest league Terran is the weakest race, while the very best Terran players in the world seem to be unbeatable ATM.
As mentionned often in this topic, Terran army is just crushed when you "a move" it on a decent Toss or Zerg army. You have to multistask like jesus as siege/unsiege tanks and liberators, burrow/unborrow mines, manage drops in opponent bases or libs harass ALL during the fight against opponent s army in the middle of the map.
When you watch Inno stream, it is just indecent as he rolls upon opponent face, as guys like Soo Classic or others top korean ladder players look like Diams scrub next to him because he is mechanics monster. I think Inno Byun Maru are able to use Terran race to make it become the best race. For the others Terran players... that is harder.
I suggest the following units should be toned down based on my ladder experience and from watching high level streamers. Reapers 3-rax reaper is much to strong. Increase the cool down on the reaper grenades in order to adjust this. Swarm Hosts Prevents mech from being used at all in TvZ. They are basically the reason that Korean pro gamers stopped using mech in TvZ. Swarm Hoss need to cost more resources.
Ravens Ravens are ok in low numbers but much to strong when massed. Increase supply from 2 to 4. No one wants to play against mass Ravens again.
Liberators Are too strong vs ground. Decrease damage so that they 2-shot Hydras and 3-shot stalkers. Carriers Are too strong vs all races. Either decrease DPS or revert the interceptor cost to 25.
Battlecruicers The teleport ability is to abusive. Increase the cool down so that you have to be more restrictive with when to use teleport.
I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
The proposed changes looked to be rotating out Galactic Process, New Gettysburg, and Apotheosis with Belshir Vestige, Newkirk Precinct, and Cactus Valley.
The proposed changes looked to be rotating out Galactic Process, New Gettysburg, and Apotheosis with Belshir Vestige, Newkirk Precinct, and Cactus Valley.
I veto every 4p maps anyway so this is looking much better than apotheosis-galactic-gettysburg, glad they changed
On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote: I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory
The proposed changes looked to be rotating out Galactic Process, New Gettysburg, and Apotheosis with Belshir Vestige, Newkirk Precinct, and Cactus Valley.
I can't be the only one who thinks the only reason they're considering Newkirk is that Showtime vs Serral game from NationWars.
I guess Bel'Shir wasn't a terrible map, but it was in the map pool for soooooooooo long back then that I have no desire to ever play on it again (similarly to some of the current maps). I have no idea why they think Newkirk is a good map. But I'm totally okay with Cactus Valley returning.
I'm not a fan of cactus valley and I think galactic process deserves another season (if reapers get fixed ofc) but I'm glad apotedosis is gone.
Quite funny how people always complained about blizzard being garbage at creating/picking maps and then Apotheosis - a community made map that got picked for the TLMC and ends up as the highest voted macro map - turns out to be a complete disaster balance wise. I guess the community isn't much better at this than blizzard.
On January 11 2017 06:13 Charoisaur wrote: I'm not a fan of cactus valley and I think galactic process deserves another season (if reapers get fixed ofc) but I'm glad apotedosis is gone.
Quite funny how people always complained about blizzard being garbage at creating/picking maps and then Apotheosis - a community made map that got picked for the TLMC and ends up as the highest voted macro map - turns out to be a complete disaster balance wise. I guess the community isn't much better at this than blizzard.
I mean it's the same community who blames balance for every loss.
Although the fact that apotheosis got in the map pool in the first place was fine, the problem here is that a clearly imbalanced map after months of pro games still got reintroduced.
The maps I'd like seeing return the most are akilon waste and merry go round btw. But another season with KSS, Daybreak or Overgrowth would be great too. Or cloud kingdom.
On January 11 2017 06:13 Charoisaur wrote: I'm not a fan of cactus valley and I think galactic process deserves another season (if reapers get fixed ofc) but I'm glad apotedosis is gone.
Quite funny how people always complained about blizzard being garbage at creating/picking maps and then Apotheosis - a community made map that got picked for the TLMC and ends up as the highest voted macro map - turns out to be a complete disaster balance wise. I guess the community isn't much better at this than blizzard.
Exactly.
I'm fine with Galactic Process and New Gettysburg. They are in fact better than the 3 replacement suggestions and should be retained.
The problem is Apotheosis, which must be replaced, maybe by Bel'Shir or a different map.
On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote: I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory
The minimal nerf won't change much for you. #goldleagueproblems
another thing i wanna add is keep an eye on TvZ and PvZ. then you will get to know mass banelings kill everything. i suggest you raise the price of baneling.
On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote: I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory
The minimal nerf won't change much for you. #goldleagueproblems
Strange, you know nothing about me, yet you comment #goldleagueproblems 1. Being in gold is great, it means you have learned your race om enough to play decently 2. Gold, bronze, what does it matter? Everyone has the right to have fun and as such everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration 3. I am actually plat, hit dia and working towards getting back into it, so with your permission, I'd say I'm not exactly the newcomer here 4. You were the one who said you lost 30scvs to 6 adepts, so I guess #woodleagueproblems
Instead of Newkirk Precinct, may we have Habitation Station or Overgrowth instead? Of course we need to fix the Liberator seige area if we keep Habitation Station, but I find games on both Overgrowth and Habitation Station to be much more interesting and more fun to play than Newkirk Precinct. On Newkirk, it's too wide open and too easy to defend the bases, easily making it a late game, split map scenario.
On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote: I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory
The minimal nerf won't change much for you. #goldleagueproblems
Strange, you know nothing about me, yet you comment #goldleagueproblems 1. Being in gold is great, it means you have learned your race om enough to play decently 2. Gold, bronze, what does it matter? Everyone has the right to have fun and as such everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration 3. I am actually plat, hit dia and working towards getting back into it, so with your permission, I'd say I'm not exactly the newcomer here 4. You were the one who said you lost 30scvs to 6 adepts, so I guess #woodleagueproblems
On January 11 2017 23:46 Olli wrote: Belshir Vestige yes please
Are you sure a map with 10 bases total and a pretty far away 4th is a good idea in LotV?
12 bases should be a minimum to even be considered as a potential ladder map in LOTV.
Agree with this, part of the dreaded death ball syndrome is that bases are so close together so you can defend one location with a giant blob of units just as easily as you can defend another, in BW maps were fucking colossal, making splitting your army a total necessity because if you blobbed around taking down on expansion from your opponent you probably lost 2 or 3 to multiple small armies, on top of that the rapidly depleting resources make 12 + expansions also imo standard for LOTV.
Although BW didn't have proxy Oracle nonsense, I'd rather have a few gimmick wins and losses with better games in between then the other way around.
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
^ Bronze speaks the truth, pretty pathetic that the balance team blames the community for complaining when there has been a ludicrous amounts of very smart (and very well written in both quality and length) complaints about the economy, redesigns on cancer units, maps, and balance.
Only for all of it to be completely and utterly ignored, David takes 1% of the community ideas, puts them on the table for a week or two before either scrapping them or altering them, says it was a community inspired balance change, and then claims that it's the communities fault for not presenting solutions after he bastardizes it or throws it out.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, this game is going less then nowhere with David at the helm, it's going in the E Sports dumpster, his "vision" for the game makes me wonder if he even plays or watches this game at all, this Hydralisk health buff is good but it's the same concept with the Lurker, why wasnt it here in WoL or HotS? Why now when the community is 1/20 the size it once was and the tournament scene is on crowd funded life support?
On January 07 2017 08:53 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: We wanted to remind people once more that just complaining without solutions isn't helpful, so if the majority of you don't believe these specific maps would be the best, please make suggestions from the existing maps that have been used on the ladder in the past because keeping the brand new map count to 4 is important.
its nothing but constructive, thoughtful suggestions here on TL.Net so Mr. Kim must be talking about some other forum board.
The DK response just shows he is not a PR guy. He could have said "We noticed the community isn't happy about proposed maps and we would like to encourage everyone to suggest maps they would like to see in next ladder pool." The same thing, just worded better. So on one side his mindset isn't good, but on the other side it's good the discussion between developers and community isn't filtered by PR team.
wow i beg for return of heavy rain at least maby instead of apotheosis ppl pls thats so fatal no matter blizz do theres alots of whineing i doesnt help in anything just wait and test the changes they make...
Blizzard says that the criticism should be constructive
--> TL translation
Blizzard complains about the community, and it is pathetic and ridiculous
...
Then you wonder why they don't interact more with forums/TL/community/etc. ... these threads are a big box of whines, T complain about P and Z, P complain about Z and T, Z complain about T and P - everyone just wants his race to be buffed or others to be nerfed, it's really *not* constructive indeed
On January 12 2017 04:09 VHbb wrote: Blizzard says that the criticism should be constructive
--> TL translation
Blizzard complains about the community, and it is pathetic and ridiculous
...
Then you wonder why they don't interact more with forums/TL/community/etc. ... these threads are a big box of whines, T complain about P and Z, P complain about Z and T, Z complain about T and P - everyone just wants his race to be buffed or others to be nerfed, it's really *not* constructive indeed
This place is pretty tame compared to the bnet forums.
On January 12 2017 03:17 Tuczniak wrote: The DK response just shows he is not a PR guy. He could have said "We noticed the community isn't happy about proposed maps and we would like to encourage everyone to suggest maps they would like to see in next ladder pool." The same thing, just worded better. So on one side his mindset isn't good, but on the other side it's good the discussion between developers and community isn't filtered by PR team.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right?
Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team.
" I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestuous organization."
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right?
Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team.
Sure there is a team, but it isn't a democracy. I believe very strongly in accountability and responsibility and he is the leader.
I won't comment on david kim and his position but did anyone really expect anything good from blizzard past lotv release?
Blizzard ignored the community during brood lord infestor era, they did not listen to map complaints during the blink era, they refuse to acknowledge obvious issues with PvT right now. Blizzard even ignored amazing economy design proposals during LotV beta.
I guess my point is that the laziness of map development and reuse of maps clearly imbalanced for LotV is not surprising
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right?
Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team.
Sure there is a team, but it isn't a democracy. I believe very strongly in accountability and responsibility and he is the leader.
The bucks stops with him.
Sure, but he's just the public face.
You make Dkim resign, and the rest of the team is the same. Nothing changes.
I don't understand how people don't see that.
Edit: I think the team does a good job, for what it's worth.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes.
Did Carriers did buffed? Yes.
Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
It goes on and on.
So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
It goes on and on.
So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
I don't settle. You shouldn't settle in life. If I take your opinions I end up living your lifestyle and I don't think I would like that.
I watched the game I love bleed players and viewers while Blizzard messed around with terrible ideas. If David Kim had the ability to know when he saw a good idea, my ideas and other good ideas from his design team and the community would have made the game much sooner.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes. Did Carriers did buffed? Yes. Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
Accountability is a real thing.
when i decided to track 1 of your big predictions that was really vague you refused to tighten up your projection into something meaningful. it was a polite request and you were mega confronttational ...your defense was you just wanted to rant and rave on here about how right you are.
with the low granularity and vagueness of many of your projections i'd say the signal to noise ratio of those projection posts is low.
Accountability is a thing. so far i'm happy with the cash i've spent on Blizzard and i'm communicating with them the best way i know how. i'm giving them more of my money.
Revenues , profits, share price, and PRODUCT ENGAGEMENT is through the roof in the years you've been pissing, moaning, whining and complaining. Every Blizzard game has a group of "hardcore fans" that says Blizzard is great at everything else EXCEPT the game they are "passionate" about. this same song is sung in the D3, WoW, Hearthstone, and Overwatch forums.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
It goes on and on.
So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
Its the job of the consumer to point out problems and suggest their wants
its the producers job to manufacture those wants.
coming up with ideas, having the community reject those ideas, then proceeding with the same rejected ideas anyways is a recipe for disaster.
Even though blizzard made a couple band-aid fixes, they were fixes that stemmed from poor to terrible design choices in the first place
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes.
Did Carriers did buffed? Yes.
Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
Accountability is a real thing.
all hail bronzeknee, savior of sc2, who singlehandedly convinced david kim to implement his genius level ideas
On January 12 2017 07:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Blizzard knows what they're doing.
Yes Blizzard knows how to make money. If that's the only factor we consider then you are 100% right. Obviously that's the only thing you care about for whatever reason.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second. Instead of preaching that there are lots of opinions and that everything is fine, why not engage the complaints directly? I am sure we all want the game to be as good as it can be, why not discuss specifics about the game instead of arguing if somebody has the right to be upset/make gamedesign related posts. Engage the arguments.
Why do you think the LOTV economy is better than the economy proposed by some TL guys during beta? Why do you think it is ok to have warpgates in the game which violete defenders advantage? (not that this will ever change ) Or to have something more relevant for this thread: Why do you think giving hydras +10 hp is a good change atm?
On January 12 2017 07:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yes Blizzard knows how to make money. If that's the only factor we consider then you are 100% right. Obviously that's the only thing you care about for whatever reason.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second. Instead of preaching that there are lots of opinions and that everything is fine, why not engage the complaints directly? I am sure we all want the game to be as good as it can be, why not discuss specifics about the game instead of arguing if somebody has the right to be upset/make gamedesign related posts. Engage the arguments.
Why do you think the LOTV economy is better than the economy proposed by some TL guys during beta? Why do you think it is ok to have warpgates in the game which violete defenders advantage? (not that this will ever change ) Or to have something more relevant for this thread: Why do you think giving hydras +10 hp is a good change atm?
I don't have a problem with gamedesign-related posts. I just didn't like his entitled tone in which he presented his opinions as facts and claimed DK is incompetent because he doesn't agree with those "facts" or implemented them to late.
I think the LOTV economy is better because it's less complicated and achieves pretty much the same (punish turtling players and force/incentive players to expand faster) Warpgates are great because they are cool, give protoss a strong harassment tool with warpprism and compensate for the lack of mobility of protoss. Hydras +10 is a good change because they really need a buff... and they shouldn't be one-shotted by liberators.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes.
Did Carriers did buffed? Yes.
Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
Accountability is a real thing.
all hail bronzeknee, savior of sc2, who singlehandedly convinced david kim to implement his genius level ideas
I'm pretty sure he's pointing out, just like i have and many others, that the community and high level players know 9999% better than david kim ever will about this game. He implements the stuff we point out months or worse, a year later - rather than taking action on things in a timely manner.
It's one of the reasons SC2 has taken a fall in korea and even abroad. You can't have a competitive e-sport with integrity when the balance is so horrendous on launch and post-launch that you have players spamming 40 adepts every game and things of this nature.
Blizzard and the community still don't get it after all these years - SC2's success is DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY WHETHER OR NOT THE GAME IS FAIR AND BALANCED.
The balance of SC2 is a disgrace honestly among where it should be.
LOTV launched a little over a year ago...and invulnerable nydus network is still in the game. Oh, and mech is less viable on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. ROFL.
On January 12 2017 09:32 avilo wrote: The balance of SC2 is a disgrace honestly among where it should be.
You tell them. Explain why P vs T is ridiculously Toss favored. I take you seriously, as does everyone else. You just gotta explain it better for us simpletons. Make a thread about it.
On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote: I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well,
If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory
The minimal nerf won't change much for you. #goldleagueproblems
Strange, you know nothing about me, yet you comment #goldleagueproblems 1. Being in gold is great, it means you have learned your race om enough to play decently 2. Gold, bronze, what does it matter? Everyone has the right to have fun and as such everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration 3. I am actually plat, hit dia and working towards getting back into it, so with your permission, I'd say I'm not exactly the newcomer here 4. You were the one who said you lost 30scvs to 6 adepts, so I guess #woodleagueproblems
gold, decent level, pick one!
this is wh yi stopped posting on TL years ago. TL used to be good players mostly, and the balance whine was in ONE thread not all of them
tired of kids writing fuckin paragraphs about how OP X race is when the TvP matchup is hard for everyone outside of code s, i guess i should have known better than to open this thread in the first place
(I mean for both terrans and protoss, its a hard matchup to play for both side)
guys everyone has had that PvT where you lose to a doom drop in a totally equal game
likewise
everyone has that game where you dont really make any mistakes as Terran, but protoss doesnt either so you dont do dmg and he just wins in the macro game with warpins everywhere
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
It goes on and on.
So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
Its the job of the consumer to point out problems and suggest their wants
its the producers job to manufacture those wants.
coming up with ideas, having the community reject those ideas, then proceeding with the same rejected ideas anyways is a recipe for disaster.
Even though blizzard made a couple band-aid fixes, they were fixes that stemmed from poor to terrible design choices in the first place
this is so spot on and IDK why this guys devils advocating so hard
we feel entitled because as fans we trusted the devs with the responsibility of making this sequel, a lot of the older players were totally DISGUSTED by the balance at the games launch and subsequent decisions. its not like i can just go to a different starcraft 2 store because i dont like this one. this is it, man. we are entitled because we spam hundreds of ladder games and care deeply about this game, and they have consistently made it apparent that the devs do not value our feedback appropriately
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes.
Did Carriers did buffed? Yes.
Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
Accountability is a real thing.
Ehm... I don't see what are you so proud of. These changes were terrible. And it only proves you and DK are both clueless. Trolling aside. In all honesty. Can you tell how any of these exactly benefited the gameplay. or playerbase growth. or something. Because the only fact blizzard implemented them with or w/o your help doesnt prove anything. These "improvements" are just... "whatever". Nothing would have changed if they were not done (exept for may be hellbat nerf but it's kinda obvious broken stuff). Same goes for pair/double worker economy.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second.
Exactly this. I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not. This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article. If measurements are wrong then please point the errors. If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them. If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go. But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback. This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second.
Exactly this. I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not. This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article. If measurements are wrong then please point the errors. If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them. If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go. But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback. This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from.
Yeah exactly. This "there are multiple opinions" argument is not valuable at all. Ofc there are multiple opinions, there are multiple opinions on anything. If there solid arguments brought forward then i don't care about that opinion. "I like sc2 as it is" is no solid argument because it implies that there is no way to improve the game. You mention the economy, there are a lot of other things on top of that which were discussed a lot and blizzard more or less ignored it. Maybe it is because the communication is flawed, maybe it is because the team simply doesn't have the ressources to do more than it does. Who knows, lots of possibilities on why there isn't much work being done.
On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:
Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."
A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:
DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"
There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.
I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.
I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization.
There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument:
#1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years...
And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game...
#2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level!
How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game.
#3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case.
And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years?
He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do.
The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second.
Exactly this. I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not. This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article. If measurements are wrong then please point the errors. If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them. If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go. But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback. This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from.
Yeah exactly. This "there are multiple opinions" argument is not valuable at all. Ofc there are multiple opinions, there are multiple opinions on anything. If there solid arguments brought forward then i don't care about that opinion. "I like sc2 as it is" is no solid argument because it implies that there is no way to improve the game. You mention the economy, there are a lot of other things on top of that which were discussed a lot and blizzard more or less ignored it. Maybe it is because the communication is flawed, maybe it is because the team simply doesn't have the ressources to do more than it does. Who knows, lots of possibilities on why there isn't much work being done.
blizzard didn't ignore the TL proposed economy system, they gave detailed feedback on why they didn't want to do this change. us.battle.net + Show Spoiler +
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote: I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on.
If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then.
On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote: I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on.
If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then.
You really can't use amount of work as a metric of truth.
Hitler put a whole lot of work into killing all the jews, that doesn't mean he was right to do so. In fact, quite the opposite.
On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote: I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on.
If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then.
You really can't use amount of work as a metric of truth.
Hitler put a whole lot of work into killing all the jews, that doesn't mean he was right to do so. In fact, quite the opposite.
I don't use it as a metric of truth. I use it to show that blizzard should respond in more detail, put more work into a response. Personally i think the economy model proposed back then is superior, but blizzard didn't really show why it's not. That's the problem. Unless you look at "workers being killed is so cool" as a valid response which completely neglects all the positives of DH.
And it still shows today, if you wanna communicate with the community you better do so with actual arguments/reaosnings, etc. That way the community might actually be able to come up with solutions instead of only bitching.
On January 12 2017 21:26 The_Red_Viper wrote: To me this qualifies as "more or less ignored". If you look at what lvl the community back then engaged that topic this is just pathetic tbh
That kind of logic always seemed strange to me. What matters is a the result, not the amount of intellectual resources/time involved. You can do an enourmous research on any topic you find attractive with dozens of references/statistics/diagrams you name it, but that doesnt mean the other party is obliged to make a corresponding review/analysis of your work. Your work could be good/well written, even be valid to some extent, but it could, as well, be irrelevant/not suitable or else. Like, i don't need your detailed research on refrigerators while i'm looking for a conditioner. This is the exact example of this. We can't predict the outcome of implementing the community proposed economy changes (i, personally, feel like it wouldn't change much), but blizzard took them in consideration and made a decision that this model doesnt suit their understanding of what this game should look like (and their response was pretty reasonable). Blaming them for ignoring/not giving detailed answers is rediculous. I don't give a fuck about ignoring, i only want this game to be better, this way or another. And i fail to see any REAL advantages of proposed eco-changes that would benefit the gameplay.
Well yes the end result is what matters. The problem is that blizzard is the only one able to change the product. Which is why all the community really can do is write articles, give arguments, etc. Which was done, in a very detailed way, showing the pros and cons. Blizzard decided to do community updates and more than once argued that the community should be constructive and bring solutions instead of being impatient. Well maybe that would be easier if there was an actual conversation going on which is more detailed/in depth than what blizzard does. I won't reiterate the arguments in favor of DH and the problems with the "economy change" (map change) of LOTV at this point. It's all out there. I mean at the end of the day Blizzard can do with the game whatever it wants, but don't pretend to care what the community has to say when in the end you respond with a few lines without any depth whatsoever. That is ridiculous.
It is pretty clear Blizzard was borderline incompetent in designing SC2 after release.
That said it's still a good game, they did good enough job on balancing, and even if we had competent design/balance team working on SC2 MOBAs would still be more popular and S. Korea would still lose interest in SC2 (mainly due to other games and matchfixing).
On January 12 2017 22:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yes the end result is what matters. The problem is that blizzard is the only one able to change the product. Which is why all the community really can do is write articles, give arguments, etc. Which was done, in a very detailed way, showing the pros and cons. Blizzard decided to do community updates and more than once argued that the community should be constructive and bring solutions instead of being impatient. Well maybe that would be easier if there was an actual conversation going on which is more detailed/in depth than what blizzard does. I won't reiterate the arguments in favor of DH and the problems with the "economy change" (map change) of LOTV at this point. It's all out there. I mean at the end of the day Blizzard can do with the game whatever it wants, but don't pretend to care what the community has to say when in the end you respond with a few lines without any depth whatsoever. That is ridiculous.
Like, i still fail to see any reason to blame them. They asked for feedback. But they didnt promise they are gonna use every idea community will propose. You are free to give it to them or not, you are not obliged. So you can't expect any sort of reward for you effort. Yes, i clearly get one's frustration when he/she is passionately striving to help someone while getting nothing in return but that's how it works in reality. This is not a family-based relationship. Devs cant afford to devote all their time to everyone who thinks he/she deserves it. I only see this communication as "brain-storm" scenario to help blizzard. We have numbers, so out goal is to shoot out any sort of ideas that cross our minds, while they are just scrolling these pages looking for things they could have missed. That's it. There is no other way as there is no such thing as community game-design.
I feel like we don't talk about the same issue. I am saying that i expect a more detailed "community update" when it's about important topics like economy, ESPECIALLY when the community invests as much time and work into it. (the quality was there). You cannot blame the community in multiple posts: "We wanted to remind people once more that just complaining without solutions isn't helpful" and when the community actually tries to bring the game forward with quality comment you post essentially "well we like workers being killed". Don't you see how absurd that is? That the community arguably has better solutions on top of that is another issue. But that's the thing. There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon
So your complaint is basically down to the following. "I'm more pissed off about being dumped w/o proper excuse than about actually being dumped". I can understand that, but i'm just another type of person. That kind of stuff just doesn't bother me.
On January 12 2017 22:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon
Unfortunately this is the main reason they give for any change. It is much easier to say "we prefer dts being able to blink because it is cool and such wow" than giving adequate explanation how this change might positively affect interactions and enrich the game. It feels like there is little research being made and they are not going into depth with possible outcomes of changes they propose which is very saddening. Most of the time when I read community feedback and look through the changes I'm under impression that they want to go "shortcuts". Try little tweak to stats and keep the fingers crossed that it won't break anything. Sometimes it might work (-1 dmg to adepts but it had good explanation and reasoning beforehand) but usually it changes little to nothing. I'd prefer trying bold changes like even removing units if they not fit than reiterating them patch to patch (swarmhosts?). I think I'm just not happy with the general direction sc2 is taking :|
On January 12 2017 22:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon
Unfortunately this is the main reason they give for any change. It is much easier to say "we prefer dts being able to blink because it is cool and such wow" than giving adequate explanation how this change might positively affect interactions and enrich the game. It feels like there is little research being made and they are not going into depth with possible outcomes of changes they propose which is very saddening. Most of the time when I read community feedback and look through the changes I'm under impression that they want to go "shortcuts". Try little tweak to stats and keep the fingers crossed that it won't break anything. Sometimes it might work (-1 dmg to adepts but it had good explanation and reasoning beforehand) but usually it changes little to nothing. I'd prefer trying bold changes like even removing units if they not fit than reiterating them patch to patch (swarmhosts?). I think I'm just not happy with the general direction sc2 is taking :|
In response to you, as well as the person your quoting, it's true that there's not enough arguments from Blizz's side on why they do certain things... but it's precisely because their PR team is running the show and not the developers.
It's frustrating as hell, when you see a change supported by the community, and they reject it for a reason that does not make sense. Then they implement something for the same exact reason. It makes the double standard obvious, and shows the reasoning we're being told is complete BS.
They put on an act if they want to do something that's not supported... they act as if they don't understand the feedback they are receiving. Like when people said LotV was too fast - they act like people are talking about the "physical speed of the game". It wasn't the physical speed of the game itself, the complaints were about the ECONOMY speed, which in turn speeds up how fast u must expand, build, etc.
They were doing good for awhile, especially leading up to LotV beta, but in summer of LotV beta they shit on everything when they reverted macro mechanic changes. The polls at that time were saying 80% support of COMPLETE macro mechanic removal. The 12 worker start was implemented and tested based on not having the income of macro mecahnics. The game was NOT too fast with the 12 worker start at that time.
Then they completely shit on everything they told us. They told us LotV would be longest beta they ever had for an RTS - then ended up releasing early and it was the same amount of months as HotS beta was. The Blizzard Store even said March 2016 release date! They told us the pros approved of the macro changes and they were moving forward, then decided to revert as they announce a release date 5 months earlier than they promised.
And... that's when the PR started. If you take their two quotes at the time, they literally straight up told us they knew MM removal was better design, but they DECIDED AGAINST IT. Yes, the GAME DESIGNERS, decided to go with a WORSE DESIGN for the game.
Then only a couple weeks of testing after a drastic change that affected the whole economy? It was rushed. Intentionally rushed. The only time I EVER seen Blizzard do that.
If you start reading the Community Feedback Updates from release until now, you will see the insanely ridiculous amount of PR and fluff found in every single post.
It's sickening. They don't really care what the players want, they are just keeping up a facade and trying to act like the community is supporting it, or the community is the blame.
Do something players dont like? Lets blame the players for not giving good enough feedback.
Decide against something that 80% players are begging for? Blame it on the "feedback you received from players".
It's a slap in the face. If your going to say you did a change "becuase of feedback from players", that should be a bulk of the feedback. Not feedback that was only 5% of the community...
The designers really need to work on the DESIGN of the game. They need to start caring about what the community actually wants to see in the game. The need to start thinking about "fun factor > cool factor". They need to be honest with the community about their reasoning. They need to stop the PR BS, because all it does is cause the community to argue with each other. They need to stop using the PR as a reason not to say "we need to hear more feedback on this matter" and then never bring the subject up again, or to do something that's not supported by the community.
I've pretty much given up at this point. Don't bother posting much anymore because it's clear they don't care.
It's painfully obvious that SC2's development is solely focused on mission packs & coop nowdays. My theory is another competitive RTS in the works to be released in 2 years (Blizzard Team 1 has been moved to a new project, and Team 1 is the RTS/moba team) - Blizz don't like to compete against themselves, so that would explain the complete lack of investment in competitive SC2 while still investing in the coop/mission segments.
But that still does not make any of their handling of SC2 right. Blizzard's team behind SC2 is the biggest tarnish on Blizzards name and reputation - far far worse than even D3. Never thought I would see Blizzard handle any game like this, much less the StarCraft series which is a lot of what made Blizzard the success tehy are today.
I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions" Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
The strange thing about the mech patch is the Blizzard managed to make mech less viable in TvZ.
Before the patch mech was viable until vipers were out. So you could at least do a pre-hive mech push.
Now mech can not even move out in the midgame due to Swarm Hosts.
But Blizzard does not fix this since pro gamers have given up on mech in TvZ tournament matches. So Blizzard never see how OP Swarm Hosts are since no one builds them against bio, which is 100% of the TvZ now.
Maybe pure-mech doesn't have to be viable in all circumstances, against all opponents. In the super-praised BW you very rarely see bio played against protoss, but it is still a very successful game.
You can play bio, bio+tanks, bio+mines, air.. it's fairly similar to gateway units, gateway units+robo, airtoss ...
Maybe blizzard loves swarmhosts, thats why they buffed mech so they could buff swarmhosts aswell. Maybe in office, they say "casuals like swarmhosts" and therefore they make this unit work.
On January 13 2017 05:24 VHbb wrote: Maybe pure-mech doesn't have to be viable in all circumstances, against all opponents. In the super-praised BW you very rarely see bio played against protoss, but it is still a very successful game.
You can play bio, bio+tanks, bio+mines, air.. it's fairly similar to gateway units, gateway units+robo, airtoss ...
You can play Bio against Protoss in BW. But only if Protoss doesnt know you go Bio. Splash damage kills it. There are still many different kinds of mech play in TvP in BW and its generally a very enjoyable match-up.
yeah you can also play mech in TvZ in LotV if the Zerg doesn't know you are going mech..... I know mech it's viable in BW TvP: my point is that in BW (which is very successful, and I guess everybody recognize as a very good game) not *all* styles are viable in *all* match-ups.
On January 13 2017 06:05 VHbb wrote: yeah you can also play mech in TvZ in LotV if the Zerg doesn't know you are going mech..... I know mech it's viable in BW TvP: my point is that in BW (which is very successful, and I guess everybody recognize as a very good game) not *all* styles are viable in *all* match-ups.
And they shouldn't be. If everything was viable vs everything, this would be an action game, not a strategy game.
On January 13 2017 06:05 VHbb wrote: yeah you can also play mech in TvZ in LotV if the Zerg doesn't know you are going mech..... I know mech it's viable in BW TvP: my point is that in BW (which is very successful, and I guess everybody recognize as a very good game) not *all* styles are viable in *all* match-ups.
Yeah but you can currently only play mech in TvT. Before the patch you could play mech in both TvT and TvZ.
So this patch actually made the game less diverse, not more.
On January 13 2017 05:00 VHbb wrote: I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions" Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
Not sure who your speaking to, but you can clearly tell communities opinion by polls, interviews, etc.
On the topic of working in a competitive field, well look how Blizzard has acted throughout all of this. How often in competitive fields do you see the business ask for feedback from the public, and then when they receive negative feedback from the public, ask for the public to "quickly make a decision on how to repair the problem"?
How often do you think competitive fields would put up with lead designers admitting to intentionally giving their software inferior design because of "perception of some people"? (not even real facts, but perception of a small % of the community)
Or in competitive fields, do you think businesses would move forward with a decision that 80% of the public was very strongly against?
Nothing about how they are handling SC2 is "professional" anymore. That went out the window almost 2 years ago.
Wouldn't you expect a business in that position to start doing some drastic measures to get back on track? That's all that people here expect. People have seen Blizzard do that so many times in the past, from D2 to WC3 to D3 to HS, we have seen Blizzard bust their ass until things were in good shape. But SC2..... has been suffering more than any other Blizzard game in their history.
Stop listening mech biased Terrans. The only thing they want is to never adapt, make one superior build and army that kills everything, countering everything.
On January 13 2017 06:46 VHbb wrote: Before the patch you heard constant whining because mech was *not* viable in TvZ, so I'm not so sure.. Honestly you hear whining about mech since WoL
Well mech was weak in TvZ but it was playable. Now it is compeltly useless due to Swarm Hosts. Better tanks means nothing if you can not build tanks due to Swarm Hosts.
On January 13 2017 05:00 VHbb wrote: I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions" Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
Not sure who your speaking to, but you can clearly tell communities opinion by polls, interviews, etc.
On the topic of working in a competitive field, well look how Blizzard has acted throughout all of this. How often in competitive fields do you see the business ask for feedback from the public, and then when they receive negative feedback from the public, ask for the public to "quickly make a decision on how to repair the problem"?
How often do you think competitive fields would put up with lead designers admitting to intentionally giving their software inferior design because of "perception of some people"? (not even real facts, but perception of a small % of the community)
Or in competitive fields, do you think businesses would move forward with a decision that 80% of the public was very strongly against?
Nothing about how they are handling SC2 is "professional" anymore. That went out the window almost 2 years ago.
Wouldn't you expect a business in that position to start doing some drastic measures to get back on track? That's all that people here expect. People have seen Blizzard do that so many times in the past, from D2 to WC3 to D3 to HS, we have seen Blizzard bust their ass until things were in good shape. But SC2..... has been suffering more than any other Blizzard game in their history.
Actually I don't see many professional companies releasing games, and keep following their balance/development/etc. years after release. I don't see many companies working on unofficial forums (TL) to poll the community and release almost monthly updates. Many many other companies simply release their games, profit from their success and it's up to the players to enjoy->play the games, or simply dismiss them. So overall I'd say Blizzard is doing better than most (in this as in many other aspects)
I don't think SC2 is "not on track" or it's out of the window: I think it's an amazing game, which I greatly enjoy watching and playing, and which is losing viewership due to many reasons. I don't think the mech balance or the swarmhosts are the reasons why SC2 doesn't have as many viewers as before (but this is an other topic)
Players are improving too much to continue these sizes of maps. Players require more mechanical challenge, imo, and the maps should reflect the progression of the community.
On January 13 2017 06:05 VHbb wrote: yeah you can also play mech in TvZ in LotV if the Zerg doesn't know you are going mech..... I know mech it's viable in BW TvP: my point is that in BW (which is very successful, and I guess everybody recognize as a very good game) not *all* styles are viable in *all* match-ups.
And they shouldn't be. If everything was viable vs everything, this would be an action game, not a strategy game.
How does this makes any sense?
So if you only have a couple of builds and a single composition you go every game where at the end is only about mechanics is a strategy game, but if you have many builds and many varied compositions that require different responses and good reading of the enemy composition is a strategy game?
Thats the most backwards thinking I've seen in some time.
On January 13 2017 05:00 VHbb wrote: I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions" Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
Not sure who your speaking to, but you can clearly tell communities opinion by polls, interviews, etc.
On the topic of working in a competitive field, well look how Blizzard has acted throughout all of this. How often in competitive fields do you see the business ask for feedback from the public, and then when they receive negative feedback from the public, ask for the public to "quickly make a decision on how to repair the problem"?
How often do you think competitive fields would put up with lead designers admitting to intentionally giving their software inferior design because of "perception of some people"? (not even real facts, but perception of a small % of the community)
Or in competitive fields, do you think businesses would move forward with a decision that 80% of the public was very strongly against?
Nothing about how they are handling SC2 is "professional" anymore. That went out the window almost 2 years ago.
Wouldn't you expect a business in that position to start doing some drastic measures to get back on track? That's all that people here expect. People have seen Blizzard do that so many times in the past, from D2 to WC3 to D3 to HS, we have seen Blizzard bust their ass until things were in good shape. But SC2..... has been suffering more than any other Blizzard game in their history.
Actually I don't see many professional companies releasing games, and keep following their balance/development/etc. years after release. I don't see many companies working on unofficial forums (TL) to poll the community and release almost monthly updates. Many many other companies simply release their games, profit from their success and it's up to the players to enjoy->play the games, or simply dismiss them. So overall I'd say Blizzard is doing better than most (in this as in many other aspects)
I don't think SC2 is "not on track" or it's out of the window: I think it's an amazing game, which I greatly enjoy watching and playing, and which is losing viewership due to many reasons. I don't think the mech balance or the swarmhosts are the reasons why SC2 doesn't have as many viewers as before (but this is an other topic)
I think it's important to keep a distinction between companies making common games, and companies making competitive games w/ tournament scenes.
Yes, Blizzard is doing more than most of the common development companies. But if we're comparing Blizzard's SC2 team to other competitive games, they are seriously lacking compared to most of them.
SC2 even has a larger scene than many other tournament/eSports games, but Blizzard still puts in less work to keep that scene going strong.
For a game series that is known for it's competitive scene, and at one point having the largest competitive scene out there, it's a damn shame that they are not putting SERIOUS work in to the competitive aspect of SC2. For them to put so much more development in to mission packs & coop mode, is a real waste of potential.
With that said, it's awesome if your enjoying watching and playing. Wish I could say the same, but I'm more unhappy with SC2 than I ever was, and it seems the SC2 scene as a whole is suffering far more than ever before, so I'm pretty sure the general consensus is the game is lacking. And SC2 popularity in Korea is plummeting while BW is going strong - which says a lot for the state of the game as a whole.
(PS: I also note that you didn't actually answer the questions I asked in previous post, and redirected them with your own. But the point of my post prior to this one is that Blizzard has not been handling the game professionally, from a development perspective to PR to a business perspective.
So the point I'm making here is an extension of that - to point out that even compared to other game companies in the competitive eSports category, SC2's development is lacking.)
I don't answer the questions because I don't like to drown in these negative threads, I really don't really need it. You may not realize it but participating to these discussions is super draining, and almost pointless. sometimes I write something because it gets very annoying to ready endless walls of text bashing blizzard or the developers, but a convoluted discussion about why sc2 is not making bw numbers is absolutely pointless for me.
Maybe Blizzard invests in coop and mission packs because of profit, or something else, I don't know. What I know is
- how much I enjoy the game has nothing to do with the viewership numbers in Korea also, it has almost nothing to do with the fine detail of the balance of the game. I am diamond, so almost anything is viable (yes even mech) and there is really *no* reason to complain for balance
- small tweaks to the game like the ones mentioned in the community updates, are not going to change the state of the game so drastically, so I'm just happy blizzard keeps looking at SC2 and trying to improve
- I don't see how you can say SC2 development is lacking, since we get constant updates/changes almost monthly. SC2 is clearly not the first Blizzard priority, so I'm very happy it is looked at by Blizzard
Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
On January 13 2017 05:00 VHbb wrote: I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions" Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
Not sure who your speaking to, but you can clearly tell communities opinion by polls, interviews, etc.
On the topic of working in a competitive field, well look how Blizzard has acted throughout all of this. How often in competitive fields do you see the business ask for feedback from the public, and then when they receive negative feedback from the public, ask for the public to "quickly make a decision on how to repair the problem"?
How often do you think competitive fields would put up with lead designers admitting to intentionally giving their software inferior design because of "perception of some people"? (not even real facts, but perception of a small % of the community)
Or in competitive fields, do you think businesses would move forward with a decision that 80% of the public was very strongly against?
Nothing about how they are handling SC2 is "professional" anymore. That went out the window almost 2 years ago.
Wouldn't you expect a business in that position to start doing some drastic measures to get back on track? That's all that people here expect. People have seen Blizzard do that so many times in the past, from D2 to WC3 to D3 to HS, we have seen Blizzard bust their ass until things were in good shape. But SC2..... has been suffering more than any other Blizzard game in their history.
Actually I don't see many professional companies releasing games, and keep following their balance/development/etc. years after release. I don't see many companies working on unofficial forums (TL) to poll the community and release almost monthly updates. Many many other companies simply release their games, profit from their success and it's up to the players to enjoy->play the games, or simply dismiss them. So overall I'd say Blizzard is doing better than most (in this as in many other aspects)
I don't think SC2 is "not on track" or it's out of the window: I think it's an amazing game, which I greatly enjoy watching and playing, and which is losing viewership due to many reasons. I don't think the mech balance or the swarmhosts are the reasons why SC2 doesn't have as many viewers as before (but this is an other topic)
With that said, it's awesome if your enjoying watching and playing. Wish I could say the same, but I'm more unhappy with SC2 than I ever was, and it seems the SC2 scene as a whole is suffering far more than ever before, so I'm pretty sure the general consensus is the game is lacking. And SC2 popularity in Korea is plummeting while BW is going strong - which says a lot for the state of the game as a whole.
It says barely anything about how well SC2 Developed is, Remember that Korean gamers stick with games longer than any other group AFAIK. Keep in mind that arguably the biggest esports for the past 4 years (League of legends) had one of the worst clients out of all of them.
Yes, Blizzard is doing more than most of the common development companies. But if we're comparing Blizzard's SC2 team to other competitive games, they are seriously lacking compared to most of them.
1) How do you know their team is smaller? To this date I have barely been able to find good information on either SC2 dev team size, or that of other games 2) Who are you comparing them to?
SC2 even has a larger scene than many other tournament/eSports games, but Blizzard still puts in less work to keep that scene going strong.
Which devs that have a smaller scene than SC2 put in comparable effort? I can't think of one.
For a game series that is known for it's competitive scene, and at one point having the largest competitive scene out there, it's a damn shame that they are not putting SERIOUS work in to the competitive aspect of SC2. For them to put so much more development in to mission packs & coop mode, is a real waste of potential.
For a game series that is known for it's competitive scene, and at one point having the largest competitive scene out there, it's a damn shame that they are not putting SERIOUS work in to the competitive aspect of SC2. For them to put so much more development in to mission packs & coop mode, is a real waste of potential.
What is still missing for the competitve scene?
Spectating is the only thing I can think of. Being able to just hop in to obs a live ladder game.
Other than that, SC2 has a pretty fleshed out competitive environment. Maybe could use more stats, maybe a better UI. Nothing major.
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
This does not make sense.
Mech players want the matchups to be even just like every other player.
For instance right now Teran bio vs Terras mech is balanced. This is good for the game compared to if every game was bio vs bio or mech vs mech since it creates a richer and more varied gameplay experience when more playstyles are possible.
Right now only Terran bio is viable in TvZ. That makes the game less interesting compared to if both bio and mech were viable in the matchups, for the same reason.
Ideally we want as many playstyles as possible to be viable in all matchups and that no unit should prevent an entire playstyle from being viable. For instance pre-nef Liberators were bad for the game since they made Mutalisk obselete so it was a good thing for the game that the Liberator got nerfed.
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
If you read my post instead of projecting your anger (towards the most zerg-like playstyle terran can play by the way), i never said mech was viable in LOTV. I said i managed to have good winrates pre-3.8 with it. Mainly because zergs didn't know how to play against it. It's just like playing mech against toss in HOTS. Relying on the lack of knowledge and lack ability to adapt of your opponent isn't having "viable" mech in the matchup. It's just abusing your opponent's stupidity. Having viable mech is incompatible with having a very cheap unit spawning free units every minute, that can fly and overwhelm any amount of static defense. That just doesn't work. And that's why there is no mech play in pro games (except for inno semi-allining Dark five times in a row at IEM), because it's not "viable". Even byun, while doing this build, was defeated by a croatian player during nation wars 4 (can't remember his name) because he simply went for mutas. And even then, the whole build is about killing off your opponent before he can get to SH/T3.
So please, next time you see mech games that go past the 15th minute mark in pro TvZs, maybe you'll be entitled to complain, but right now you're just being intellectually dishonnest.
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
If you read my post instead of projecting your anger (towards the most zerg-like playstyle terran can play by the way), i never said mech was viable in LOTV. I said i managed to have good winrates pre-3.8 with it. Mainly because zergs didn't know how to play against it. It's just like playing mech against toss in HOTS. Relying on the lack of knowledge and lack ability to adapt of your opponent isn't having "viable" mech in the matchup. It's just abusing your opponent's stupidity. Having viable mech is incompatible with having a very cheap unit spawning free units every minute, that can fly and overwhelm any amount of static defense. That just doesn't work. And that's why there is no mech play in pro games (except for inno semi-allining Dark five times in a row at IEM), because it's not "viable". Even byun, while doing this build, was defeated by a croatian player during nation wars 4 (can't remember his name) because he simply went for mutas. And even then, the whole build is about killing off your opponent before he can get to SH/T3.
So please, next time you see mech games that go past the 15th minute mark in pro TvZs, maybe you'll be entitled to complain, but right now you're just being intellectually dishonnest.
Is the Swarmhost currently used in other matchups than ZvMech? if not i don't understand why the swarmhost is even in the game because I think zerg has enough options to counter mech (Viper hardcounters the entire playstyle). The only possible problem for zerg vs. mech i could possibly imagine is early cyclone pressure/allins.
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
If you read my post instead of projecting your anger (towards the most zerg-like playstyle terran can play by the way), i never said mech was viable in LOTV. I said i managed to have good winrates pre-3.8 with it. Mainly because zergs didn't know how to play against it. It's just like playing mech against toss in HOTS. Relying on the lack of knowledge and lack ability to adapt of your opponent isn't having "viable" mech in the matchup. It's just abusing your opponent's stupidity. Having viable mech is incompatible with having a very cheap unit spawning free units every minute, that can fly and overwhelm any amount of static defense. That just doesn't work. And that's why there is no mech play in pro games (except for inno semi-allining Dark five times in a row at IEM), because it's not "viable". Even byun, while doing this build, was defeated by a croatian player during nation wars 4 (can't remember his name) because he simply went for mutas. And even then, the whole build is about killing off your opponent before he can get to SH/T3.
So please, next time you see mech games that go past the 15th minute mark in pro TvZs, maybe you'll be entitled to complain, but right now you're just being intellectually dishonnest.
Is the Swarmhost currently used in other matchups than ZvMech? if not i don't understand why the swarmhost is even in the game because I think zerg has enough options to counter mech (Viper hardcounters the entire playstyle). The only possible problem for zerg vs. mech i could possibly imagine is early cyclone pressure/allins.
Absolutely not. I've never seen a swarm host post 3.8 used for anything but to destroy mech. But that's "working as intended" because i remember DK stating that they overbuffed the swarm host to force people to use it.
Which is of course insanely idiotic for a unit that has such poor design : the swarm host will always be extremely OP or terrible against mech, while being useless against other comps.
The SH should be a long range AoE anti air T3 unit that can be used to punish turtly play => mass air. The carrier and the BC can't stay in the state they are against zerg, but if they're nerfed back they won't be used ever. Giving zerg means to kill off air transitions that aren't sustained by a good economy (aka : playing a normal game => mass air instead of turtle => mass air). This would insure a much more reliable and fair late game AoE AA for zerg, instead of forcing the race to an extreme reliance on vipers, meaning the parasitic bomb could be cut. Also, this would buff the broodlords indirectly.
The position blizzard adopted towards turtle play in Mech V Zerg was "let's buff the late game units, and give both sides the ability to deal free damage". Free damage based on energy (viper abduct, raven turrets or seekers), or free damage based on cooldowns (BC yamato/teleport, swarm host locusts). Problem is, as we've seen in late HOTS were late game mech was unbeatable for zerg while blinding clouds and abducts were extremely oppressive, that leads to moronic turtle games where terran seeks to depleat the map's ressources, with vipers preventing any attempt at doing a timing attack. Now vipers are even more abusive, and late game skyterran is arguably even more unbeatable (liberators, raven steroids seeker, BC teleport/yamato).
The only way mech will be viable, with agressive choices, will be to nerf the viper slightly and redesign the SH into a late game AoE AA unit that makes zerg not terrible against skyterran/skytoss.
Viper abducts are not free damage as uneed actually dmg dealing army to kill unit after the pull. Ravens with autoturets and seeker missile are different story and indeed free damage.
And your proposal of nerfing Vipers (again)...So basically nerf vipers that are preventing timing deadly pushes and instead change SH to deal better with lategame terran air? LOL. This is so silly proposal as that would mean that Zerg dies in those timing pushes as Viper is the only valuable counter and we never get to lategame. Nice bias.
On January 13 2017 23:09 hiroshOne wrote: Viper abducts are not free damage as uneed actually dmg dealing army to kill unit after the pull. Ravens with autoturets and seeker missile are different story and indeed free damage.
And your proposal of nerfing Vipers (again)...So basically nerf vipers that are preventing timing deadly pushes and instead change SH to deal better with lategame terran air? LOL. This is so silly proposal as that would mean that Zerg dies in those timing pushes as Viper is the only valuable counter and we never get to lategame. Nice bias.
Timing pushes only work before vipers are out, moving out when vipers are out is suicide. There have been reasonable proposals how to nerf vipers vs mech slightly, for instance by making the blinding cloud reduce the range of targeted units by half instead of making them entirely useless.
On January 13 2017 23:09 hiroshOne wrote: Viper abducts are not free damage as uneed actually dmg dealing army to kill unit after the pull. Ravens with autoturets and seeker missile are different story and indeed free damage.
And your proposal of nerfing Vipers (again)...So basically nerf vipers that are preventing timing deadly pushes and instead change SH to deal better with lategame terran air? LOL. This is so silly proposal as that would mean that Zerg dies in those timing pushes as Viper is the only valuable counter and we never get to lategame. Nice bias.
Timing pushes only work before vipers are out, moving out when vipers are out is suicide. There have been reasonable proposals how to nerf vipers vs mech slightly, for instance by making the blinding cloud reduce the range of targeted units by half instead of making them entirely useless.
Nerfing the viper in a very simple way would be to make abduct unable to target ground massive. This way, mech players deciding to invest into ground to do some kind of push could use the thor's long range AA to zone out vipers. Which wouldn't make the vipers any worse when engaging with blinding cloud, or at picking off units that aren't properly covered by thors. And for zerg this would open the way for the hydra buff, which in the current state of things wouldn't make much sense, or/and a broodlord buff back to 11 range to make thors less of a counter.
On January 13 2017 23:09 hiroshOne wrote: Viper abducts are not free damage as uneed actually dmg dealing army to kill unit after the pull. Ravens with autoturets and seeker missile are different story and indeed free damage.
And your proposal of nerfing Vipers (again)...So basically nerf vipers that are preventing timing deadly pushes and instead change SH to deal better with lategame terran air? LOL. This is so silly proposal as that would mean that Zerg dies in those timing pushes as Viper is the only valuable counter and we never get to lategame. Nice bias.
The aim is to reduce zerg's overreliance on vipers by nerfing it and buffing actual units that can trade favorably against mech, depending on the composition the terran uses, while making turtly air strats much weaker by giving zerg a counter to it with T3. Since the latest mech games we've seen in 3.8 (and pretty much the only ones) were innovation against dark, where his entire build was to kill dark before T3 (2 factories semi allin => +3 factories mass tank with no starport, while constantly scanning the lair to push out when T3 started), accusing me of bias when advocating a very slight viper nerf, a SH redesign and other zerg units buffs is kinda silly don't you think?
i would love them to see play around a bit with sentrys... my idea make an update at the cyber core wich provides the possibilty to switch between either forcefields or shield upgrade. shield upgrades would add some more shield to all units (more for gateway units less for everything else (robo, air, templars)within a certain range. After completing the upgrade u can either switch between forcefields or shield generator/buff. the switch should take a while so they cant switch mid fight.
with this change we would greatly buff all gateway units for later stages... the shield buff should not be stackable
On January 14 2017 00:02 KOtical wrote: i would love them to see play around a bit with sentrys... my idea make an update at the cyber core wich provides the possibilty to switch between either forcefields or shield upgrade. shield upgrades would add some more shield to all units (more for gateway units less for everything else (robo, air, templars)within a certain range. After completing the upgrade u can either switch between forcefields or shield generator/buff. the switch should take a while so they cant switch mid fight.
with this change we would greatly buff all gateway units for later stages... the shield buff should not be stackable.
just an idea...
damn hitted quote instead of edit =( sorry for doublepost
On January 14 2017 00:02 KOtical wrote: i would love them to see play around a bit with sentrys... my idea make an update at the cyber core wich provides the possibilty to switch between either forcefields or shield upgrade. shield upgrades would add some more shield to all units (more for gateway units less for everything else (robo, air, templars)within a certain range. After completing the upgrade u can either switch between forcefields or shield generator/buff. the switch should take a while so they cant switch mid fight.
with this change we would greatly buff all gateway units for later stages... the shield buff should not be stackable
just an idea...
Cool idea, sentries have lost a lot of value in LOTV especially vs terran. We used to see people open with a sentry all the time but now its considered super risky because of a single reaper or double adept openers/oracle, ling drop openers.
On January 13 2017 23:33 JackONeill wrote: The aim is to reduce zerg's overreliance on vipers by nerfing it and buffing actual units that can trade favorably against mech, depending on the composition the terran uses, while making turtly air strats much weaker by giving zerg a counter to it with T3. Since the latest mech games we've seen in 3.8 (and pretty much the only ones) were innovation against dark, where his entire build was to kill dark before T3 (2 factories semi allin => +3 factories mass tank with no starport, while constantly scanning the lair to push out when T3 started), accusing me of bias when advocating a very slight viper nerf, a SH redesign and other zerg units buffs is kinda silly don't you think?
Explain me which units could receive buff and trade well vs mech...
The tank crush all the ground zerg units, outrange them (yeah tank is the unit with the longest range of the game), while tanks don't even need Aclik, they auto-fire in sieged mode...
Your idea is quite simple to understand :
You want : Tanks hard counter all ground zerg (already the case), Thors hard counter all air : Make both, can't lose...
Your idea of mech play don't imply at any moment the 50% possibility for Zerg of winning the game, how you engage a sieged tank line as zerg ?
You don't want zerg to make SH, you don't want zerg to make vipers.
Zerg buff to allow them to engage a sieged tank line ?
What ? 215 HP roach ? 120 HP Hydras ? to help them engaging tanks, and survive one more hit ? Broodlords on lair ? 5 larvas per inject ? 40 mineral to build a worker ? 200 mineral Hatch ? to make Zerg eco strong enough to compensate trading so badly vs Mech ?
That's also funny how many terran complains about mech on TvT while they have ten times more tools to counter it than zerg, but well better complain about the only three zerg counter of the tanks...
You know you can create a mod with the editor with what you want, and try the change you want, and publish it so everyone can play it.
But i bet in that mod, Zerg wouldn't have any chance of beating terran.
On January 13 2017 23:33 JackONeill wrote: The aim is to reduce zerg's overreliance on vipers by nerfing it and buffing actual units that can trade favorably against mech, depending on the composition the terran uses, while making turtly air strats much weaker by giving zerg a counter to it with T3. Since the latest mech games we've seen in 3.8 (and pretty much the only ones) were innovation against dark, where his entire build was to kill dark before T3 (2 factories semi allin => +3 factories mass tank with no starport, while constantly scanning the lair to push out when T3 started), accusing me of bias when advocating a very slight viper nerf, a SH redesign and other zerg units buffs is kinda silly don't you think?
Explain me which units could receive buff and trade well vs mech...
The tank crush all the ground zerg units, outrange them (yeah tank is the unit with the longest range of the game), while tanks don't even need Aclik, they auto-fire in sieged mode...
First of all that's simply wrong. Tempest is the unit with the most range in the game. Also, if you're already complaining about the way sieged units work, that's a bad start.
On January 14 2017 04:09 Tyrhanius wrote: Your idea is quite simple to understand :
You want : Tanks hard counter all ground zerg (already the case), Thors hard counter all air : Make both, can't lose...
Your idea of mech play don't imply at any moment the 50% possibility for Zerg of winning the game, how you engage a sieged tank line as zerg ?
Tanks countering ground zerg => why not, at some point they do sure. Thors countering all air => thors countering all air? Have you ever tried countering broodlords with thors in equal supplies? You're gonna have a fun time.
Also it's pretty pointless to talk about tanks and thors vs ground or air zerg without taking into account that blinding cloud works against both tanks and thors, against both AG and AA capabilities of ground mech. Which is quite fair i suppose, but makes the engage pretty much rely on the exectution and positionning of both players.
And how do you engage a sieged position with zerg? Either you don't and attack someplace else (duh) to strech defenses, or you use vipers with blinding cloud or abduct everything that's not covered by a turret. Making vipers unable to grab thors won't change the siege breaking ability of the viper. It'll just mean that you'll either have to engage with vipers and blinding cloud, or trade vipers for the key units constituting the defenses of the terran that'll allow you to overwhelm him. Right now, with good control, attacking a position with enough vipers is pretty much free with good abducts.
On January 14 2017 04:09 Tyrhanius wrote: You don't want zerg to make SH, you don't want zerg to make vipers.
Zerg buff to allow them to engage a sieged tank line ?
What ? 215 HP roach ? 120 HP Hydras ? to help them engaging tanks, and survive one more hit ? Broodlords on lair ? 5 larvas per inject ? 40 mineral to build a worker ? 200 mineral Hatch ? to make Zerg eco strong enough to compensate trading so badly vs Mech ?
That's also funny how many terran complains about mech on TvT while they have ten times more tools to counter it than zerg, but well better complain about the only three zerg counter of the tanks...
You know you can create a mod with the editor with what you want, and try the change you want, and publish it so everyone can play it.
But i bet in that mod, Zerg wouldn't have any chance of beating terran.
That's just sterile complains that aren't constructive at all.
Giving 10 HPs to hydras would make it so that tanks without +2 attack won't 2 shot hydras anymore, which greatly decreases the pushing capabilities of mech before zerg has T3. 11 range broodlords makes them much better at overwhelming thors, that will end up being incapacitated by broodlings (and blinding clouds) when attempting to get in range. Coupling it with a "can't grab ground massive" on the viper and SH redesign to be T3 and fit the role of the parasitic bomb (while being more reliable and efficient) would de-emphasize how much zerg depends on the viper to actually allow much more interactions in mech V Zerg before reaching the late game.
Seems to me you're just complaining because you're getting stomped by mech on the ladder. Give me a single pro 3.8 game where terran plays mech and wins against 5-6 vipers and we can talk about it, but for now i'll put you in the "too busy to whine about his ladder experience to see the big picture".
Making abduct not work on massive units would mae Vipers useless. Haha Hive, heavy gas unit that can pull only cyclones and tanks at best. LoL. And it would totally fuck Zergs in PvZ
It would be interesting to see how many T propose mech buffs, how many Z propose zerg buffs, how many P propose toss buffs.. judging from the little icon beside the forum name it seems everyone just wants to see its race buffed and everyone else nerfed not a useful feedback
On January 13 2017 11:11 JackONeill wrote: Since i started playing mech in TvZ during HOTS i've always found a way to play mech in TvZ. Even during every stage of LOTV, i still managed to get 55-60% in TvZ with mech only. Pre-3.8 patch too.
But the new swarm hosts are completely and utterly game breaking against mech. I feel like i play very balanced TvZ mech games unless my opponent finds the key to build swarm hosts. Then, either you choose to turtle while being incapable to kill off the swarm hosts, which doesn't work because you have to be agressive against zerg before the T3 timing, either you choose to push out. But the fact that they're so insanely cheap and impossible to catch and kill off makes them game breaking. And i'm not even talking about late game situations where building 10 SHs while roaming with 6-8 vipers/hydras is a very simple and easy way to kill a meching terran no matter what his comp is. Even if i've got a lot of beef with units like ravens or vipers (because they force a turtly mechanic in MechVZerg), SHs are much more problematic because they pretty much singlehandedly make any attempt at playing against zerg without researching stim a lost cause.
On the other side, mech versus protoss now seems to be possible with the new cyclone. If the AA was buffed a little, it may be completely viable.
Well and you're part of the guys who say mech needed some buffs, because it wasn't viable ?
Now you admit it was viable ?
You just wanted to push your winrate from 55-60% to 70-80 % ?
Pretty disgusting to see terrans like you using balance discussion for lobying, and asking to make their race stronger while you even admit it wasn't needed as your winrates were >50%
When we saw all this terrans claiming : " Mech isn't viable", buff tanks, nerf vipers, etc...", they get a massive amount of buffs, and as a result balance is worst than before (specially PvT with 40%...).
Now obviously you're again lobbying for nerfing another counter of your style...
For instance right now Teran bio vs Terras mech is balanced. This is good for the game compared to if every game was bio vs bio or mech vs mech since it creates a richer and more varied gameplay experience when more playstyles are possible.
Right now only Terran bio is viable in TvZ. That makes the game less interesting compared to if both bio and mech were viable in the matchups, for the same reason.
Ideally we want as many playstyles as possible to be viable in all matchups and that no unit should prevent an entire playstyle from being viable. For instance pre-nef Liberators were bad for the game since they made Mutalisk obselete so it was a good thing for the game that the Liberator got nerfed.
who cares about mirror matchup balance? Balancing for mirror matchup that ends up disrupting non-mirror matchup balance is a horrendous idea.
And why does T units to be buffed to make things more interesting? Why should mech be viable in first place? Do you see Protoss players whining they can't go pure Robo builds for the sake of 'more interesting builds'?
BECAUSE VARIATION IS GOOD. USINg your brain in different ways is good. Just as protoss can relie more on zealots or stalkers or mix up stalkers/sentries or mix up zealots/archons. Potentially. Just as terran can relie more on bio or relie more on mech. Its a bloody easy answer, its for variation and mech has potentially a good variation just as bio. No questions should be asked why its a good thing BIO AND MECH could work on their own.. Its a no-brain question that comes from people that doesnt understand a single thing about design in the first place.
Do you see people NOT WANT different compositioons for protoss? NO you dont, just as people like you shouldnt question the design process of variation and dynamic playstyles. It should exist, PERIOD. Stop these nonsense questions of WHY instead HOW should be the center.
On January 16 2017 20:11 Foxxan wrote: BECAUSE VARIATION IS GOOD. USINg your brain in different ways is good. Just as protoss can relie more on zealots or stalkers or mix up stalkers/sentries or mix up zealots/archons. Potentially. Just as terran can relie more on bio or relie more on mech. Its a bloody easy answer, its for variation and mech has potentially a good variation just as bio. No questions should be asked why its a good thing BIO AND MECH could work on their own.. Its a no-brain question that comes from people that doesnt understand a single thing about design in the first place.
Do you see people NOT WANT different compositioons for protoss? NO you dont, just as people like you shouldnt question the design process of variation and dynamic playstyles. It should exist, PERIOD. Stop these nonsense questions of WHY instead HOW should be the center.
yeah actually protoss doesn't have two alternative styles like bio and mech, all "styles" are based on gateway unites complemented by robo units, and occasionally air units. You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. But of course you can just shout "design" and "playstyle" and believe to be right..
I think these complaints would disappear if blizzard would just take a stance on factory units and just say that they are supposed to be support units for bio. But as long as blizzard says they are trying to make "viable" it is not to much to ask for it to actually be viable. That being said, if top pros like Innovation, TY and Gumiho are doing it, it must be viable no?
Personally I think since the races are different, it can be interesting with one race having two very different styles but if mech is gonna end up with mass raven/viking/bc turtle I would rather be without it.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
Air units have separate upgrades, though
That was the point. Nobody is asking for stargate only play even though the upgrades "suggest" it might be a thing. Not really important but i simply didn't buy the "upgrade argument". It's mainly due to bw that people wanna see mech as an option.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
These are actually some design decisions I rarely see questioned.
Medivacs come out extremely early, warp gate remove defensive advantage (and makes gateway units weaker), nydus has never found a nice place in the game, ground armies can't fight air armies.
I know map makers harp on the air unit design, because it makes their terrain work completely meaningless, but other than that - it's pretty quiet.
Imagine if medivacs were later in the tech tree - you might actually see lurkers in ZvT, and protoss wouldn't be rolling around their base all game trying not to die to a widow mine.
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
These are actually some design decisions I rarely see questioned.
Medivacs come out extremely early, warp gate remove defensive advantage (and makes gateway units weaker), nydus has never found a nice place in the game, ground armies can't fight air armies.
I know map makers harp on the air unit design, because it makes their terrain work completely meaningless, but other than that - it's pretty quiet.
Imagine if medivacs were later in the tech tree - you might actually see lurkers in ZvT, and protoss wouldn't be rolling around their base all game trying not to die to a widow mine.
Sometimes i complain about the medivac, other than that nobody really though hehe. It's not necessarily that it comes too early, but as a bio terran you wanna get healing no matter what and you get "free" mobility with it as well. I mean i like terrans showing off their multitasking through drops, but it's pretty much a given that there will be lots and lots of drops every single TvX simply because medivacs are a must have. That alone makes the other two races highly dependant on fast units and/or air units (blink stalkers, bling ling instead of lurkers, etc)
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote: You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
but the games I just listed show that it IS possible to have this in sc2. sure those games were the exception and the majority of mech games were far more turtly but the fact that those games with exciting positional battles HAVE happened shows that it's not impossible to have something like this in sc2. I'm sure with a few changes those kind of games can become way more common.
Most of the games you listed were TvT tbf. A few examples also don't mean much i think. (not saying that these were all examples, i simply don't know atm). Also since then the game had a mapchange (other people call it economy change) and other things changed, do you have any recent examples of interesting mech games?
Personally i believe that you would need to change A LOT of things to make an interesting mech style work (or rather interesting mech matchups)
I'm sure Gumiho and ForGG played a lot more exciting mech games in tvz I just don't remember them. there are barely examples of mech being played in LotV at all so obviously the odds of interesting mech games are pretty low.
edit: now that I think about it, TY vs Nerchio at blizzcon was pretty fun,
Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
I dunno about other people, but as Zerg I'm looking at 72-80 drones, not "3 base economy cap".
By the time I get that, I'm spread out over 5 bases, usually.
On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
I dunno about other people, but as Zerg I'm looking at 72-80 drones, not "3 base economy cap".
By the time I get that, I'm spread out over 5 bases, usually.
Well yes if you build more workers you can saturate gas and a few minerals. That's not really the same though. The point is that you usually don't really wanna build more than ~70 workers (zerg can be an exception depending on map, matchup, etc) and no matter how many bases you take you won't get more income with that amound of workers. It's about a 3 base cap, you are perfectly fine having three mining bases at all times which also means that the game becomes about army efficiency (well ofc you always wanna be efficient, but it adds to this) and getting to ultimate armies might be more important than anything else. While it is fine to balance the game that way in theory, it doesn't really address that different unit compositions have different strengths and weaknesses in defending/mobility, etc. Especially now that you have to expand faster because of low mineral counts. I think the whole economy design is flawed and limiting.
It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote: It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
Abduct is the only useful ability it has left. May as well just remove it if you're going to nerf abduct, too.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even realize the point of balancing a game is to get 50/50 win rates. Removing all of a race's answers to a strategy will not get a 50/50 win rate.
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote: It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
Abduct is the only useful ability it has left. May as well just remove it if you're going to nerf abduct, too.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even realize the point of balancing a game is to get 50/50 win rates. Removing all of a race's answers to a strategy will not get a 50/50 win rate.
I agree that Zerg needs answers to mech.
Problem is that the answers are to strong.
Every mech player I talked to struggles on this patch no matter if they are diamond, master or GM. It is even worse at pro level, mech is more less dead at pro level.
So obviously things are not fine as they are.
Nerfing Swarm Hosts and toning down Vipers is something that must be done.
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote: It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
Abduct is the only useful ability it has left. May as well just remove it if you're going to nerf abduct, too.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even realize the point of balancing a game is to get 50/50 win rates. Removing all of a race's answers to a strategy will not get a 50/50 win rate.
PB and blinding cloud are still extremely good against mech, altough I don't thing PB is a problem because sky terran is really strong.
However I agree with abduct, I think BC is not that problematic either (altough is a bit too strong currently) because is mostly useful against huge pushes and thus is a big counter to turtle strategies, however abudct makes small hit and run tactics for zerg way too strong and mech is already weak to these types of strategies and its what forces most mech games to be too defensive.
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote: It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
you need to nerf something on the mech side as well. battle cruisers and ravens are ridiculous atm. you also have to do something to the turtle potential. most people dont like to play against avilo cancer turtle style and being forced into it feels a bit like rape. engaging into a liberator/widowmine/tankline/turret is never fun for the attacking party unless u have those units urself. even then it can be tedious.
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote: It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ 1. Increase Swarm Host cost. 2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
you need to nerf something on the mech side as well. battle cruisers and ravens are ridiculous atm. you also have to do something to the turtle potential. most people dont like to play against avilo cancer turtle style and being forced into it feels a bit like rape. engaging into a liberator/widowmine/tankline/turret is never fun for the attacking party unless u have those units urself. even then it can be tedious.
Well I agree that both mass ravens and battlecruicers need to be toned down.
Ravens are ok in low number but OP when massed. I suggest increasing their supply from 2 to 4 to make them harder to mass, and maybe lower the range of the seeker missile uppgrade.
Battlecruicers themselves are ok, but the teleport ability is too strong. Either make the teleport range shorter or increase the teleport cooldown.
On January 16 2017 20:11 Foxxan wrote: BECAUSE VARIATION IS GOOD. USINg your brain in different ways is good. Just as protoss can relie more on zealots or stalkers or mix up stalkers/sentries or mix up zealots/archons. Potentially. Just as terran can relie more on bio or relie more on mech. Its a bloody easy answer, its for variation and mech has potentially a good variation just as bio. No questions should be asked why its a good thing BIO AND MECH could work on their own.. Its a no-brain question that comes from people that doesnt understand a single thing about design in the first place.
Do you see people NOT WANT different compositioons for protoss? NO you dont, just as people like you shouldnt question the design process of variation and dynamic playstyles. It should exist, PERIOD. Stop these nonsense questions of WHY instead HOW should be the center.
Hey! We want Zerg to be able to amass small, but mass quantity units like lore. Let's gave banelings the ability to dissolve into 2 smaller banes upon death. Let's also allow Queen to produce small critters as well. Also, reduce supply cost on zerglings. And we want this style to be viable versus all races and builds, so let's make lings able to attack air. BECAUSE VARIATION IS GOOD. ITS OK IF THIS MAKES Z OP. - This is just mirroring your logic.
On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
Hopefully we might see more testing with FRB-like map ideas since this year Blizzard is opening up their mapmaking constraints somewhat such as the number of mineral/gas nodes per expansion. I'm still a tad salty that they changed the 6m1g expansions on Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak, but hopefully we can see mapmakers iterate expansion design to something more optimal this year now that they'll hopefully be more free to do that.
On January 17 2017 04:20 avilo wrote: Mech still worse on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. Swarmhosts currently are worse than the old ridiculous swarmhost that took over the game.
Virtually zero mech games at pro level. And if the Z knows about how to abuse swarmhosts it's always a loss.
Pretty disappointed.
That is sooo not true. Yesterday in Wardii Cup Gumiho owned Snute with mech on overgrowth in 30 minutes game 3 where Snute had mass vipers and SH with hydra and BL support. Here u go- pro level game with mech working fine. The only difference is that Gumiho was ACTIVE with his mech. Not only turtling and waiting to max out as You are doing Avilo.
And about workers and bases. No. Not everyone is oerfectly fine on 3 base economy. For Zerg it isn't the case. We need more because our engagements are almost always less eficient than Toss or Terran. U need 4 bases at least to compete with Terran or Toss 3 base eco.
On January 17 2017 04:20 avilo wrote: Mech still worse on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. Swarmhosts currently are worse than the old ridiculous swarmhost that took over the game.
Virtually zero mech games at pro level. And if the Z knows about how to abuse swarmhosts it's always a loss.
Pretty disappointed.
That is sooo not true. Yesterday in Wardii Cup Gumiho owned Snute with mech on overgrowth in 30 minutes game 3 where Snute had mass vipers and SH with hydra and BL support. Here u go- pro level game with mech working fine. The only difference is that Gumiho was ACTIVE with his mech. Not only turtling and waiting to max out as You are doing Avilo.
And about workers and bases. No. Not everyone is oerfectly fine on 3 base economy. For Zerg it isn't the case. We need more because our engagements are almost always less eficient than Toss or Terran. U need 4 bases at least to compete with Terran or Toss 3 base eco.
Did Snute use Swarm Hosts? If no that does not really prove anything. I can also use mech against Zergs that forgets to build Swarm Hosts.
If he did use Swarm Hosts, please provide link as that would be interesting to watch.
On January 17 2017 04:20 avilo wrote: Mech still worse on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. Swarmhosts currently are worse than the old ridiculous swarmhost that took over the game.
Virtually zero mech games at pro level. And if the Z knows about how to abuse swarmhosts it's always a loss.
Pretty disappointed.
That is sooo not true. Yesterday in Wardii Cup Gumiho owned Snute with mech on overgrowth in 30 minutes game 3 where Snute had mass vipers and SH with hydra and BL support. Here u go- pro level game with mech working fine. The only difference is that Gumiho was ACTIVE with his mech. Not only turtling and waiting to max out as You are doing Avilo.
And about workers and bases. No. Not everyone is oerfectly fine on 3 base economy. For Zerg it isn't the case. We need more because our engagements are almost always less eficient than Toss or Terran. U need 4 bases at least to compete with Terran or Toss 3 base eco.
Did Snute use Swarm Hosts? If no that does not really prove anything. I can also use mech against Zergs that forgets to build Swarm Hosts.
If he did use Swarm Hosts, please provide link as that would be interesting to watch.
Snute used swarmhosts. Still a terrible example since Snute played the game very badly and spent about 4k mineral in spores that never killed a unit all game long
Snute played as he played because he was forced into it by Gumiho play. For example very active squad of banshees, mass viking which with presplits killed everything in the air for Zerg. But Gumiho not alike most of mech whiners were PRESPLITTING his air to avoid massive parasitic bombs. He always engaged carefully and intellige t. I really think that people who are crying about mech being weak, are crying because they cannot a-move to victory after 25 minites of camping. Just go watch Innovation and Gumiho insteadd of Avilo and learn how to use it.
hiroshOne, I was evaluating the game, not asking for your one-directed obsession of defending the Zerg race/ attacking meching players. Gumiho played well. And Snute did not. I am not commenting on the mech viability, cuz that is something you do best apparently. So please keep the mech discussion to yourself.
On January 18 2017 01:09 Phaenoman wrote: hiroshOne, I was evaluating the game, not asking for your one-directed obsession of defending the Zerg race/ attacking meching players. Gumiho played well. And Snute did not. I am not commenting on the mech viability, cuz that is something you do best apparently. So please keep the mech discussion to yourself.
You gave your opinion on how Snute played and he gave his opinion on how Gumiho played. Your response was quite unwarranted.
On January 18 2017 01:09 Phaenoman wrote: hiroshOne, I was evaluating the game, not asking for your one-directed obsession of defending the Zerg race/ attacking meching players. Gumiho played well. And Snute did not. I am not commenting on the mech viability, cuz that is something you do best apparently. So please keep the mech discussion to yourself.
You gave your opinion on how Snute played and he gave his opinion on how Gumiho played. Your response was quite unwarranted.
His comment was another mech-directed post, not just an opinion on the match.
On January 18 2017 01:09 Phaenoman wrote: hiroshOne, I was evaluating the game, not asking for your one-directed obsession of defending the Zerg race/ attacking meching players. Gumiho played well. And Snute did not. I am not commenting on the mech viability, cuz that is something you do best apparently. So please keep the mech discussion to yourself.
You gave your opinion on how Snute played and he gave his opinion on how Gumiho played. Your response was quite unwarranted.
His comment was another mech-directed post, not just an opinion on the match.
The way he expressed his view was a little harsh but he gave reasons for why Gumiho played well and forced Snutes hand. He stated things that Gumi did in that particular match.
My post was exactly about mech. Mech is powerful but has weaknesses like low mobility.That's how it was designed. Good players can use that into their favor, bad players will whine and want compensation. For example Muta/bling is very mobile but fragile composition. Imagine Zergs whiningand crying to Blizzard to make Muta have 300 hp instead of 120 "because they die to fast to marines". It's just stupid. And here we go with you people- mech ownes everything on the ground for Zerg so the only option is Viper. And what do u do? Whine to nerf vipers and SH- Arguably the only things that give Zerg chance to compete. Avilo demands more mobility for mech- ok. I'm fine with that as soon as Blizzard nerfs its firepower and durability.
Mech is fine as AN OPTION for Terran. To mix it. Just as Zergs sometimes play Bling/muta or roach/ravager and shit. You will always have problems with mech being viable vs everything in every situation as mech is not a separate race but just an option for u to play. If i will play Roach/Ravager every matchup in every situation ignoring what my opponent is making- i will definitely lose more than win.
I was triggered by Avilo when he stated that there is LITERALLY no pro games with succesful mech. I find this to be a lie. Just to prove his bs.
On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
Hopefully we might see more testing with FRB-like map ideas since this year Blizzard is opening up their mapmaking constraints somewhat such as the number of mineral/gas nodes per expansion. I'm still a tad salty that they changed the 6m1g expansions on Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak, but hopefully we can see mapmakers iterate expansion design to something more optimal this year now that they'll hopefully be more free to do that. + Show Spoiler +
thanks for posting the video. i watched and had forgotten about it. i hope they make good on this promise. i'd love to see some ladder maps with non-standard/unusual resource levels.
On January 18 2017 01:42 hiroshOne wrote: Mech is fine as AN OPTION for Terran. To mix it. Just as Zergs sometimes play Bling/muta or roach/ravager and shit. You will always have problems with mech being viable vs everything in every situation as mech is not a separate race but just an option for u to play. If i will play Roach/Ravager every matchup in every situation ignoring what my opponent is making- i will definitely lose more than win. I was triggered by Avilo when he stated that there is LITERALLY no pro games with succesful mech. I find this to be a lie. Just to prove his bs.
i agree. i play 60% of my games as Random and 40% as Terran in Diamond. I'm happy with Mech right now. for me its a solid OPTION as you call it. Which is exactly what DK wanted Mech to evolve into with LotV. Mech as an OPTION not an answer to everything or a race unto itself. Blizzard has done well with the post BlizzCon 2016 changes. i'm happy and having fun.
im actually 100% sure that in all the non-tournament, ~5k mmr games you guys play in that its never not worth it to upgrade both mech units and bio units and make use of them both
, especially if you are making mostly bionic, mech upgrades pay off big time even in small numbers of units (+1 to a tank is like 10% more dmg, you can reach a really discouraging amount of tanks really fast). you dont need 3/3 marines to buffer your mech, even if ur just cranking out 1/1 marines with stim and shields to go with ur mech, your composition will drastically improve, especially against a lot of the units mech struggles vs. if you dont buy it, go test in a unit tester. the interaction between the rapid fire rate of marines and large dmg blows from mech means less wasted shots from your shock cannons and more dead zerg.
when it comes to tvp, mech upgrades are kinda questionable, but the plating and ship weapons are pretty standard now
The game i played vs gumi on overgrowth had a lot of bad decisions on my end, not my proudest zvmech
I think ZvT balance (not design) is in a good spot and that swarm host strength is not that high of a priority in terms of balance (not design).
Some players do mech in KR gm. It's still viable in some scenarios assuming zerg goes a certain route, and there are some moves you can make vs hosts: trying to force zerg away from making swarm host, pushing SH tech further back in time (say, a banshee into liberator opening) - the first minutes of the game are very important. When you delay the onset of the hosts, they lose their snowball effect. From there you can do a lot of cool fake pressure moves, too. But if you do something like 2base cloakshee expand and run into 2base muta into 3base swarm host, you will probably lose. Mech usually is not very favorable unless Zerg makes roach/hydra/viper/etc.
I know there aren't that many swarm host games for reference. But I do have a small library of them and when I do play well, I find hosts to just destroy T if I get them out early enough. I've also played some SH games in previous series vs Gumiho and those games were wins in my favor. I'm a little bit surprised to not see hosts used more on the KR streams I've watched - there's actually a lot of roach hydra viper into broodlord going on still, and it often loses to bc/raven and stuff.
I would love to contribute with something useful but honestly the mech samples on the highest levels of play are so small I don't really know what to think besides this.
On January 18 2017 14:41 Liquid`Snute wrote: The game i played vs gumi on overgrowth had a lot of bad decisions on my end, not my proudest zvmech
I think ZvT balance (not design) is in a good spot and that swarm host strength is not that high of a priority in terms of balance (not design).
Some players do mech in KR gm. It's still viable in some scenarios assuming zerg goes a certain route, and there are some moves you can make vs hosts: trying to force zerg away from making swarm host, pushing SH tech further back in time (say, a banshee into liberator opening) - the first minutes of the game are very important. When you delay the onset of the hosts, they lose their snowball effect. From there you can do a lot of cool fake pressure moves, too. But if you do something like 2base cloakshee expand and run into 2base muta into 3base swarm host, you will probably lose. Mech usually is not very favorable unless Zerg makes roach/hydra/viper/etc.
I know there aren't that many swarm host games for reference. But I do have a small library of them and when I do play well, I find hosts to just destroy T if I get them out early enough. I've also played some SH games in previous series vs Gumiho and those games were wins in my favor. I'm a little bit surprised to not see hosts used more on the KR streams I've watched - there's actually a lot of roach hydra viper into broodlord going on still, and it often loses to bc/raven and stuff.
I would love to contribute with something useful but honestly the mech samples on the highest levels of play are so small I don't really know what to think besides this.
Thank You Snute for jumping in. But concidering all things you said. Do u think that Swarmhosts along with Vipers should be nerfed because they are making mech unviable? Honestly i also think that all the problems with balancing mech are sourced in design, but nerfing those two units would break the game for Zerg and we could have HOTS mech after SH nerf again.
On January 18 2017 14:41 Liquid`Snute wrote: The game i played vs gumi on overgrowth had a lot of bad decisions on my end, not my proudest zvmech
I think ZvT balance (not design) is in a good spot and that swarm host strength is not that high of a priority in terms of balance (not design).
Some players do mech in KR gm. It's still viable in some scenarios assuming zerg goes a certain route, and there are some moves you can make vs hosts: trying to force zerg away from making swarm host, pushing SH tech further back in time (say, a banshee into liberator opening) - the first minutes of the game are very important. When you delay the onset of the hosts, they lose their snowball effect. From there you can do a lot of cool fake pressure moves, too. But if you do something like 2base cloakshee expand and run into 2base muta into 3base swarm host, you will probably lose. Mech usually is not very favorable unless Zerg makes roach/hydra/viper/etc.
I know there aren't that many swarm host games for reference. But I do have a small library of them and when I do play well, I find hosts to just destroy T if I get them out early enough. I've also played some SH games in previous series vs Gumiho and those games were wins in my favor. I'm a little bit surprised to not see hosts used more on the KR streams I've watched - there's actually a lot of roach hydra viper into broodlord going on still, and it often loses to bc/raven and stuff.
I would love to contribute with something useful but honestly the mech samples on the highest levels of play are so small I don't really know what to think besides this.
Thanks Snute for a well detailed experience with swarm hosts.
A question, when you say delay the hosts, do you mean things like drone harass (esp. the ones in gas), or forcing you to use larvae on combat units instead of drones? What are some of the effective ways your hosts are delayed? And what numbers do you need to start that 'snowball' effect you mentioned?
On January 07 2017 09:59 Solar424 wrote: Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
2 weeks? release was november 10th 2015 and the adept change was on 29th january 2016... so its been more like 3 months not 2 weeks...
i hate it when people try to sell their oppinions as facts...
also i wanna state something on the oppinion that protoss is the least played race as for now, ya thats true and i know why! its because 90% of protoss players left the game with the start of lotv, because they didnt had any deathball army in lotv. i know this is a fact because my protoss friends all left the game because of that reason, they didnt like the new units especially the disruptor, wich made the army harder to controll... also they didnt know how to counter the liberator at that time, wich made the game very frustrating for them.
On January 07 2017 09:59 Solar424 wrote: Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
2 weeks? release was november 10th 2015 and the adept change was on 29th january 2016... so its been more like 3 months not 2 weeks...
i hate it when people try to sell their oppinions as facts...
Including beta adepts were in that state for almost half a year.
On January 07 2017 09:59 Solar424 wrote: Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
i hate it when people try to sell their oppinions as facts...
also i wanna state something on the oppinion that protoss is the least played race as for now, ya thats true and i know why! its because 90% of protoss players left the game with the start of lotv, because they didnt had any deathball army in lotv. i know this is a fact because my protoss friends all left the game because of that reason...
On January 07 2017 09:59 Solar424 wrote: Is there a reason Blizzard loves Terran so much? PvT winrate is the worst it's been in years and they say "we're looking into it" as they always do, but when Adepts were plaguing the matchup they got nerfed within a 2 weeks.
also i wanna state something on the oppinion that protoss is the least played race as for now, ya thats true and i know why! its because 90% of protoss players left the game with the start of lotv, because they didnt had any deathball army in lotv. i know this is a fact because my protoss friends all left the game because of that reason, they didnt like the new units especially the disruptor, wich made the army harder to controll... also they didnt know how to counter the liberator at that time, wich made the game very frustrating for them.
This is why you Terrans need to start acknowledging that your race is currently really problematic in both ZvT and TvP, for the sake of keeping this game alive
On January 18 2017 14:41 Liquid`Snute wrote: The game i played vs gumi on overgrowth had a lot of bad decisions on my end, not my proudest zvmech
I think ZvT balance (not design) is in a good spot and that swarm host strength is not that high of a priority in terms of balance (not design).
Some players do mech in KR gm. It's still viable in some scenarios assuming zerg goes a certain route, and there are some moves you can make vs hosts: trying to force zerg away from making swarm host, pushing SH tech further back in time (say, a banshee into liberator opening) - the first minutes of the game are very important. When you delay the onset of the hosts, they lose their snowball effect. From there you can do a lot of cool fake pressure moves, too. But if you do something like 2base cloakshee expand and run into 2base muta into 3base swarm host, you will probably lose. Mech usually is not very favorable unless Zerg makes roach/hydra/viper/etc.
I know there aren't that many swarm host games for reference. But I do have a small library of them and when I do play well, I find hosts to just destroy T if I get them out early enough. I've also played some SH games in previous series vs Gumiho and those games were wins in my favor. I'm a little bit surprised to not see hosts used more on the KR streams I've watched - there's actually a lot of roach hydra viper into broodlord going on still, and it often loses to bc/raven and stuff.
I would love to contribute with something useful but honestly the mech samples on the highest levels of play are so small I don't really know what to think besides this.
Thanks Snute for a well detailed experience with swarm hosts.
A question, when you say delay the hosts, do you mean things like drone harass (esp. the ones in gas), or forcing you to use larvae on combat units instead of drones? What are some of the effective ways your hosts are delayed? And what numbers do you need to start that 'snowball' effect you mentioned?
On January 18 2017 14:41 Liquid`Snute wrote: The game i played vs gumi on overgrowth had a lot of bad decisions on my end, not my proudest zvmech
I think ZvT balance (not design) is in a good spot and that swarm host strength is not that high of a priority in terms of balance (not design).
Some players do mech in KR gm. It's still viable in some scenarios assuming zerg goes a certain route, and there are some moves you can make vs hosts: trying to force zerg away from making swarm host, pushing SH tech further back in time (say, a banshee into liberator opening) - the first minutes of the game are very important. When you delay the onset of the hosts, they lose their snowball effect. From there you can do a lot of cool fake pressure moves, too. But if you do something like 2base cloakshee expand and run into 2base muta into 3base swarm host, you will probably lose. Mech usually is not very favorable unless Zerg makes roach/hydra/viper/etc.
I know there aren't that many swarm host games for reference. But I do have a small library of them and when I do play well, I find hosts to just destroy T if I get them out early enough. I've also played some SH games in previous series vs Gumiho and those games were wins in my favor. I'm a little bit surprised to not see hosts used more on the KR streams I've watched - there's actually a lot of roach hydra viper into broodlord going on still, and it often loses to bc/raven and stuff.
I would love to contribute with something useful but honestly the mech samples on the highest levels of play are so small I don't really know what to think besides this.
Thank You Snute for jumping in. But concidering all things you said. Do u think that Swarmhosts along with Vipers should be nerfed because they are making mech unviable? Honestly i also think that all the problems with balancing mech are sourced in design, but nerfing those two units would break the game for Zerg and we could have HOTS mech after SH nerf again.
what I meant by delaying the hosts is that, say, if you open up with a cloak banshee build, it's very hard for the swarm host player to move out. you'll have to invest into a spire, nydus, queendrops, etc. before it's possible to move out with the hosts. this pushes the hosts back in time. I think 15-20 hosts is where things start getting really out of hand for terran, but it also depends on what stage of the game terran is in. a 200/200 terran will be able to deal with a lot of hosts pretty well, but the sooner they hit the more damage they can cause. Whirlwind Cross positions with a banshee hellion opening is a good example of shutting down someone who forgets their spire, for example. Great setup for mech.
I really don't know what to nerf if you'd nerf zerg. Ground zerg is garbage vs tanks save for the hosts (for a while) - hosts fall off around 200/200, and raven/bc/ghost destroys sky zerg very well (?). It's just about the timing windows, maybe? I wouldn't mind a small price increase for the hosts to make the host count increase more slowly.. but if you nerf the cost too much and it becomes unusable you might end up with an OP situation if T super-late game proves to be unbeatable. Thors for example are really really good vs brood lords, and yamato is crazy good.
The blinding cloud nerf was already a very big nerf to zerg ground vs mech, viper doesn't feel too strong vs that. I wouldn't nerf the viper that much. Pbomb and abduct are the best spells right now. But idk if sky zerg vs sky terran is what people are complaining about. Most of what I've heard from mech terrans is actually about the early hosts, not sky zerg/pbomb lategame. So who knows <_> personally i don't think sky zerg is even that strong, playing with hosts feels way better.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6AkMmMb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sRyDI5zh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nK9K0tb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/d/d9/HonorGrounds_SC2_Map1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20161203081224)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l5VIDWT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n79Ngf8.jpg)
. I don't think they should bring back apotheosis because it's just fucking broken (even if it is in favor of my race). Galactic process was also quite imbalanced in terran's favor. I love the map because I just double gold and play super aggro, but I'm definitely in the minority for zerg players on that map. I also love new Gettysburg, but realize most players hate the air blockers. I guess this has been a long way of saying that I agree that they shouldn't bring back any of those maps. 
) 
