|
Liberator Concord Cannon damage changed from 85 to 75.
While there has been a lot of great feedback regarding suggestions for PvT, this change looks to be the solution proposed by many players out there. However, we wanted to confirm with you before making this move. Because a change like this targets the specific problem and is a very small change outside of that, we wanted to get your thoughts on possibly pushing this out to the live game as early as next week.
Further Changes
The above change will definitely make a difference in PvT, so we want to make sure things are looking good before making other balance calls. So any further changes will most likely go to the Balance Test Map first. We are currently still seeing discussions around Carrier strength in PvZ, Widow Mine strength in PvT and Hydra health changes. If further changes are needed, we will take action on them as well.
This balance test map can go live as early as next week as well, so please give us your thoughts.
Thanks for continuing to work with us to make StarCraft II the best game that it can be!
Notable changes in unit interactions with 75 damage liberators :
- 3 shots vs stalkers/adepts/zealots instead of 2 (many people still think liberators aren't affected by armor, they are)
- 2 shots instead of 1 vs high templars and sentries
- 5 shots instead of 4 vs immortals (without barrier)
- 2 shots instead of 1 vs hydras
- 8 shots instead of 7 vs fully upgraded ultras (if no air upgrade on libs)
Getting air attack upgrades will be more important now but at least liberators aren't as broken as before!
|
As a Terran player I agree with the Liberator change. Liberators need to be toned down and this is a good move.
|
On January 24 2017 04:45 MockHamill wrote:
As a Terran player I agree with the Liberator change. Liberators need to be toned down and this is a good move.
We both proposed this change in the last few community feedback threads, maybe they do read those then 8)
|
great! finally. now a widow mine shield nerf and all is fine.
|
It's good.
hopefully they'll adress 3 rax reaper (about a year too late lol) and Carriers (painfully obvious that it's too good.) next.
then the game might be in a good place.
|
This won't be enough to fix PvT, but it helps.
|
On January 24 2017 05:00 Comedy wrote:
It's good.
hopefully they'll adress 3 rax reaper (about a year too late lol) and Carriers (painfully obvious that it's too good.) next.
then the game might be in a good place.
that lib change is a year too late as well :p
|
On January 24 2017 05:03 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:00 Comedy wrote:
It's good.
hopefully they'll adress 3 rax reaper (about a year too late lol) and Carriers (painfully obvious that it's too good.) next.
then the game might be in a good place. that lib change is a year too late as well :p
ha, at the very least it's coming though.
i do find it interesting that they're talking about Hydra health again, considering they just said they were tabling it for now.
I guess you're right - it looks like they're taking the well thought out posts to heart! (and correctly ignoring all the ones that are just whine)
|
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on.
|
If only they would do something about TvT. It's an absolute drag to play since every game feels the same. Ravens --> doomdrops --> boring siege fests. As much as people loved to hate on the tankivac, it served an important role for TvT. It made the game dynamic and mobile. You could always respond to a doomdrop by quickly flying your tanks to defend. Now if he gets to land the tank there is almost nothing you could do. Tankivac also allowed you to end games where you were far ahead. Now you often have to play on for another 5 minutes before you finally can break your opponents siege line.
|
Dont touch Hydra health!
Nerf Carriers!
Revert Baneling health!
Remove +Shield dmg on mines!
|
8748 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on.
and you can keep saying it however much you want. you have no way of checking for the alternative
|
On January 24 2017 05:08 MperorM1 wrote:
If only they would do something about TvT. It's an absolute drag to play since every game feels the same. Ravens --> doomdrops --> boring siege fests. As much as people loved to hate on the tankivac, it served an important role for TvT. It made the game dynamic and mobile. You could always respond to a doomdrop by quickly flying your tanks to defend. Now if he gets to land the tank there is almost nothing you could do. Tankivac also allowed you to end games where you were far ahead. Now you often have to play on for another 5 minutes before you finally can break your opponents siege line.
Ravens would have to be changed. Like nerfing the auto turret damage or just replace it with a new ability.
|
On January 24 2017 05:10 insitelol wrote:
Dont touch Hydra health!
Nerf Carriers!
Revert Baneling health!
Remove +Shield dmg on mines!
Hydra HP should be buffed. Would like to see hydras for the whole match instead of using them for a little while then transitioning into something else.
|
I'd love to see the freedom zone diameter on the liberator nerfed, maybe by 1, then added back with the advanced ballistics upgrade.
|
its rly good direction in which blizz is going now  also ( im toss player) but pls , pls try to make hydra to fearsome beast, add hp or +1 armor or both even
|
In the last couple of tournaments progamers were talking about getting together to talk to balance team of SC2.
Most of us agree that we would like to see a lot of small changes like you see in this community feedback. Last community feedback was disappointing but this shows a lot of potential. I think Blizzard should play with a lot of small changes that wouldn't break the game on either side.
My small suggestions at the moment would be to:
- Make feedback 75 energy. Would help zerg in PvZ late game and maybe would allow more caster usage. Wouldn't break anything else (maybe sometimes feedback vs mass phoenix in PvP but I am not an expert and doesn't happen too often)
- If we change feedback then Carriers might not need to be nerfed that hard since vipers will be more playable. Still a small nerf would be neccessary. Maybe going back to 25 minerals for interceptors or something else. -1 interceptor max?
I think those 2 are the most important at the moment but there is a lot more that could be played with without breaking the game. Examples:
- Could buff stalkers a little bit like +1 or +2 damage against everything.
- Adept shade cooldown could be 1/2 seconds longer so you need to commit more and can't jump between bases so easily. If people don't like it then could make the shade itself longer for the same amount.
I could write more but there are more personal changes where I disagree with the design like medivac boost being free and should cost 10-15 energy but some people will not take this post serious I guess 
|
On January 24 2017 05:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on.
On the other hand, they've had some very quick nerfs to some other units and strats. Blizzard has definitely been criticized for both extremes when it comes to their balance changes.
|
small change but a good step
|
On January 24 2017 05:25 Nerchio wrote:In the last couple of tournaments progamers were talking about getting together to talk to balance team of SC2. Most of us agree that we would like to see a lot of small changes like you see in this community feedback. Last community feedback was disappointing but this shows a lot of potential. I think Blizzard should play with a lot of small changes that wouldn't break the game on either side. My small suggestions at the moment would be to: - Make feedback 75 energy. Would help zerg in PvZ late game and maybe would allow more caster usage. Wouldn't break anything else (maybe sometimes feedback vs mass phoenix in PvP but I am not an expert and doesn't happen too often) - If we change feedback then Carriers might not need to be nerfed that hard since vipers will be more playable. Still a small nerf would be neccessary. Maybe going back to 25 minerals for interceptors or something else. -1 interceptor max? I think those 2 are the most important at the moment but there is a lot more that could be played with without breaking the game. Examples: - Could buff stalkers a little bit like +1 or +2 damage against everything. - Adept shade cooldown could be 1/2 seconds longer so you need to commit more and can't jump between bases so easily. If people don't like it then could make the shade itself longer for the same amount. I could write more but there are more personal changes where I disagree with the design like medivac boost being free and should cost 10-15 energy but some people will not take this post serious I guess
I agree with those except maybe 20 minerals for interceptors?
And give back vision to shades while nerfing the cooldown was what i always wanted
|
Good change, hopefully that will be enough to balance tvp.
I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers.
Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo.
@Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore.
|
On January 24 2017 05:35 Charoisaur wrote:
Good change, hopefully that will be enough to balance tvp.
I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers.
Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo.
@Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore.
Maybe although it doesn't happen that often in Lotv I think
|
This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat.
It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move.
Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back.
|
huh, with that lib nerf I might actually try playing some lurker styles
looks fun
|
Weird, I thought there was no problem in TvP. Maybe David Kim actually started watching the game.
|
|
|
If further changes are needed, we will take action on them as well.
Which means nothing in the end. What is needed to change can be entirely subjective, and with blizzards view on things nothing will change pretty much if we go on how they have done this before.
|
why not make the shade targetable (and revert the vision nerf), but add +2 armor to the shade?
that way lings would not be able to kill the shade, but banes and roaches could?
so noobs like me would not suck _that_ hard against a competent toss.
|
+1 armor on hydras would make much more sense as a buff instead of raw hp. Would make the unit usable in ZvT and not buff it too much in ZvP where it's already good.
|
On January 24 2017 06:30 Gheizen64 wrote:
+1 armor on hydras would make much more sense as a buff instead of raw hp. Would make the unit usable in ZvT and not buff it too much in ZvP where it's already good.
I don't think any buff to hydra will give them more appearance in ZvT because of one simple reason- Marine and BIO overall is much more powerful than in Broodwar. They wreck hydras and 10 hp more will not change that. Actually in broodwar u could fight Hydra/ling vs Marine/medic. In sc2 BIO is super strong with stim and much more mobile i feel. It would not work. Hydras are actually present in ZvT but only vs mech.
But I would happily see some love for hydras indeed :-)
|
On January 24 2017 05:46 todespolka wrote:
This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat.
It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move.
Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back.
that should be the purpose of the tank. liberators are already more mobile than tanks, it makes sense then that they should be weaker.
|
On January 24 2017 06:43 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 06:30 Gheizen64 wrote:
+1 armor on hydras would make much more sense as a buff instead of raw hp. Would make the unit usable in ZvT and not buff it too much in ZvP where it's already good. I don't think any buff to hydra will give them more appearance in ZvT because of one simple reason- Marine and BIO overall is much more powerful than in Broodwar. They wreck hydras and 10 hp more will not change that. Actually in broodwar u could fight Hydra/ling vs Marine/medic. In sc2 BIO is super strong with stim and much more mobile i feel. It would not work. Hydras are actually present in ZvT but only vs mech. But I would happily see some love for hydras indeed :-)
hydras are awful vs marine medic in bw since they do half damage to light units. the instant a single medic is out they start trading inefficiently.
|
On January 24 2017 05:12 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on. and you can keep saying it however much you want. you have no way of checking for the alternative
I can check for the alternative, because it happened. This is about qualitative analysis (even though quantity of their poor balance history is pages long).
Take any of those issues where Blizzard was too slow... say Hellbats on release in HOTS. A lot of people, including myself, saw the obvious that Hellbats had the potential to become BFH all over again for TvT (and I can go into why BFH was broken if need be). It should not have happened, it was disgraceful to repeat that.
But precisely that happened.
So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again. It didn't take a rocket scientist, people like me were posting why Hellbats needed a nerf long before the release of HOTS. While it never should have been balanced like that in the first place (and that is very telling in itself that it was balanced like that), once it was Blizzard should have been able to look at the game and realized the similarities before they released HOTS.
But they were unable to do just that, which is something so basic. So players were unnecessarily frustrated before it was patched, and it had to be patched out, wasting time and resources for Blizzard. Thus, if you analyze their decision making qualitatively, you see the incompetence, especially if you compare that to the decision making of Riot. And sadly, that isn't the only example of Blizzard literally repeating history and being clueless.
On January 24 2017 05:25 Nerchio wrote:In the last couple of tournaments progamers were talking about getting together to talk to balance team of SC2. Most of us agree that we would like to see a lot of small changes like you see in this community feedback. Last community feedback was disappointing but this shows a lot of potential. I think Blizzard should play with a lot of small changes that wouldn't break the game on either side. My small suggestions at the moment would be to: - Make feedback 75 energy. Would help zerg in PvZ late game and maybe would allow more caster usage. Wouldn't break anything else (maybe sometimes feedback vs mass phoenix in PvP but I am not an expert and doesn't happen too often) - If we change feedback then Carriers might not need to be nerfed that hard since vipers will be more playable. Still a small nerf would be neccessary. Maybe going back to 25 minerals for interceptors or something else. -1 interceptor max? I think those 2 are the most important at the moment but there is a lot more that could be played with without breaking the game. Examples: - Could buff stalkers a little bit like +1 or +2 damage against everything. - Adept shade cooldown could be 1/2 seconds longer so you need to commit more and can't jump between bases so easily. If people don't like it then could make the shade itself longer for the same amount. I could write more but there are more personal changes where I disagree with the design like medivac boost being free and should cost 10-15 energy but some people will not take this post serious I guess
The Viper is such a poorly designed unit that doesn't encourage counterplay, I'd hate to see it more often.
I warned about Abduct on release because it is an all or nothing ability. In late game situations, either it can be landed without being countered easily and it is too strong, or it is too easy to counter and thus if Zerg is dependent on it, it creates a game balance issue if it can't be used effectively.
|
Thanks for continuing to work with us to make StarCraft II the best game that it can be!
`murica! FUCK YAH!
This bud is for you!
Rabbit: A number one top gun, in the name of justice, John Q. Public can trust us. Hail to thee dear old Paroon, hail to thee.
All: Hail to thee!
Rabbit: Hail to thee!
|
Finally.. almost one year later on this one but hey.. Its good so keep the good work blizz!
|
8748 Posts
I can check for the alternative, because it happened
...
So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again.
I don't get it. You're not considering the alternative. You're just giving an example supporting what you're saying.
Two ways I can think of to consider the alternative:
#1 You point out times when the community was able to identify something as problematic and it ended up never being solved by players or by maps, so it never got solved until the game itself changed. But what about the times when the community identifies something and it does resolve itself without changes to the game itself? Doing your analysis in hindsight prevents you from testing yourself against this at all. Community feedback is like a shotgun blast and you focus on the pellets that hit the target and forget about all the ones that miss. The ones that miss are the alternative.
#2 You never know when a problem is actually unsolvable. BW was played unchanged for so many years and radically new strategies were still being invented (that did not depend on new maps). When Blizzard doesn't change something for a long time, and then finally does change it, how do you know a player's solution wasn't right around the corner? Maybe Blizzard didn't wait long enough. So the alternative here lies in a hypothetical future.
If Blizzard quickly changed the rules of the game, players are robbed of the opportunity to solve their problems strategically, which is the essence of the game. There's no point to a cycle of "play the game" -> "encounter an obstacle" -> "wait for patch to mix things up again". It's okay for MOBAs with 100 heroes and endless team comps but not okay for RTS with 3 races.
You'd be creating situations where players encounter an obstacle and don't even try very hard to solve it, but rather they just bypass it. They can do some all-ins or make unusual compositions for that one matchup for this one season because next season they know it's going to be changed.
|
*Tychus Findlay*
Hell, it's about time.
Edit:
Also, guy above me is speaking sense as per usual.
|
On January 24 2017 05:46 todespolka wrote:
This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat.
It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move.
Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back.
Well with the tanks that creates a 13 zone you shouldn't go, and WM, and liberator, tanks/WM/liberators is a deathball vs Protoss ground.
Also T used to siege their lib right in the face of Protoss army, and P only have blink stalkers vs Liberators.
Still liberator will have 65.8 DPS, that's still pretty insane
|
|
|
On January 24 2017 05:35 Charoisaur wrote:
Good change, hopefully that will be enough to balance tvp.
I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers.
Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo.
@Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore.
God forbid a protoss would need units in position ahead of time
|
On January 24 2017 08:07 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:46 todespolka wrote:
This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat.
It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move.
Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back. Well with the tanks that creates a 13 zone you shouldn't go, and WM, and liberator, tanks/WM/liberators is a deathball vs Protoss ground. Also T used to siege their lib right in the face of Protoss army, and P only have blink stalkers vs Liberators. Still liberator will have 65.8 DPS, that's still pretty insane
AFAICT, no one uses tanks outside of timings in TvP. It's always better to just get more liberators and mines instead.
That said this change is fine. I'd still prefer reducing liberator damage by 5 (instead of 10) so it only changes the interaction with stalkers, and reducing mine splash vs shields (because it makes NO SENSE that it makes more +damage than the primary hit), but this works too.
|
this is terrible. blizzard dont even follow their own game its kinda sad. without liberators being broken as they were. u simply cannot win fights since the marauder got nerfed so heavely at start of lotv. really what makes tvp strong early game is fact
u can do a timing push 2-3 tank bio and its hard for protoss to stop but now days it isnt even that hard to stop
protoss started to figure this out and stop dieing to it. so nerfing liberator is completly pointless.
my solution woulda been this nerf tank damage by some porcetange and in the same patch u nerf ravager so tank can deal with them still somewhat good, since u cant pick up em anymore.
sometimes i wonder if blizzard even listen to ppl that play their game or they just randomly make things up. so sad i wanna see terran win tvp fights with libs being bad in fights not 1 shotting templars / sentry and 3shotting stalker is huge. right now all fights center aboiut terran hopefully killing all stalkers so they dont get run over by just how much worse bio got since maruader split damage
|
Still not good enough changes to make me play SC2 actively again. I'm still better off playing CS and other games.
|
On January 24 2017 09:07 Major wrote:
this is terrible. blizzard dont even follow their own game its kinda sad. without liberators being broken as they were. u simply cannot win fights since the marauder got nerfed so heavely at start of lotv. really what makes tvp strong early game is fact
u can do a timing push 2-3 tank bio and its hard for protoss to stop but now days it isnt even that hard to stop
protoss started to figure this out and stop dieing to it. so nerfing liberator is completly pointless.
my solution woulda been this nerf tank damage by some porcetange and in the same patch u nerf ravager so tank can deal with them still somewhat good, since u cant pick up em anymore.
sometimes i wonder if blizzard even listen to ppl that play their game or they just randomly make things up. so sad i wanna see terran win tvp fights with libs being bad in fights not 1 shotting templars / sentry and 3shotting stalker is huge. right now all fights center aboiut terran hopefully killing all stalkers so they dont get run over by just how much worse bio got since maruader split damage
They do listen to the people that play their game - that's the problem.
99.9% of the people who play the game have no idea how to play, but they all know how to make a post on the forums.
|
there's still too much overlap between tanks and liberators.. with liberators being the superior unit. it doesn't need to be in the game at all
|
On January 24 2017 09:18 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
there's still too much overlap between tanks and liberators.. with liberators being the superior unit. it doesn't need to be in the game at all
XD? really? u even play this game? they dont overlap at all. tanks are slow take long to siege normally, do 1 shot and die. while libs make u able to fight straigh on get multiple shot. and kill keys lets remove liberator. so i cant kill a single ultra. sounds genious
|
the Viper sucks. a hanging, flying unit that can pull a siege tank out of the ground while remaining motionless in mid-air. umm ya ok. the Brood War flying Queen broodling-thing was better as an air anti-tank unit.
On January 24 2017 06:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:12 NonY wrote:On January 24 2017 05:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on. and you can keep saying it however much you want. you have no way of checking for the alternative I can check for the alternative, because it happened. This is about qualitative analysis (even though quantity of their poor balance history is pages long).
alternative you say? alternative?
my alternatives are Red Alert 2 and 3 and CoH1. SC2 is still better than them. i don't live in a dream world where i think some massive multi-billion dollar corporation will cater to my every whim just because Blizzard's official PR policy is to never stand up to paying customers.
i post conservative suggestions and a reasonable portion of the time changes occur along the lines of what i ask for. when i don't get the changes i want and the resulting game is fun i keep on playing it and i keep giving Blizzard more money.
i bet you SC2 is going to be better than Halo Wars 2.... which is another alternative.
|
On January 24 2017 09:18 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
there's still too much overlap between tanks and liberators.. with liberators being the superior unit. it doesn't need to be in the game at all
Yeah i agree. Balance wise terran surely needs it right now, but concept wise it's a horrible addition to the terran arsenal.
Terran already had a starport unit it can harras with, terran already had a siege unit, terran already had a unit which deals with mutas. Adding a unit simply for the sake of adding a unit.
But you could say the same about most units added in both hots and lotv tbh
On January 24 2017 09:22 Major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 09:18 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
there's still too much overlap between tanks and liberators.. with liberators being the superior unit. it doesn't need to be in the game at all XD? really? u even play this game? they dont overlap at all. tanks are slow take long to siege normally, do 1 shot and die. while libs make u able to fight straigh on get multiple shot. and kill keys lets remove liberator. so i cant kill a single ultra. sounds genious
It's more about the concept. The liberator and the siege tank are both siege units. Instead of making the tank viable they simply gave that siege role to a unit which doesn't care about terrain and is harder to kill because it flies. You are right that terran needs the liberator in the current version of sc2 though, but it really shouldn't need it is the main point tbh.
On January 24 2017 09:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the Viper sucks. a hanging, flying unit that can pull a siege tank out of the ground while remaining motionless in mid-air. umm ya ok. the Brood War flying Queen broodling-thing was better as an air anti-tank unit. Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 06:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 24 2017 05:12 NonY wrote:On January 24 2017 05:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been saying since 2012 that Blizzard is way too slow on balancing the game. They were late with the 4 gate nerf back in early WOL, late with the 1-1-1 nerfs, late with BL/Infestor nerf, late with Vortex nerf... it just goes on and on. and you can keep saying it however much you want. you have no way of checking for the alternative I can check for the alternative, because it happened. This is about qualitative analysis (even though quantity of their poor balance history is pages long). alternative you say? alternative? my alternatives are Red Alert 2 and 3 and CoH1. SC2 is still better than them. i don't live in a dream world where i think some massive multi-billion dollar corporation will cater to my every whim just because Blizzard's official PR policy is to never stand up to paying customers. i post conservative suggestions and a reasonable portion of the time changes occur along the lines of what i ask for. when i don't get the changes i want and the resulting game is fun i keep on playing it and i keep giving Blizzard more money. i bet you SC2 is going to be better than Halo Wars 2.... which is another alternative.
Are you criticizing the animation? Or are you trying to argue it shouldn't work that way because of real word physics? Not entirely sure tbh.
Just because sc2 is the best modern product overall doesn't mean that a lot of its parts cannot be improved/criticized.
Why not discuss potential "problems" on a case by case basis? Having fun/Being happy with a product doesn't mean it's the best it could be. It's imo important to try to understand WHY you like/dislike some things and how these things interfere with the goals of said game (rts concepts here basically).
|
On January 24 2017 09:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Instead of making the tank viable they simply gave that siege role to a unit which doesn't care about terrain and is harder to kill because it flies.
Liberators do care about terrain. Specifically they care about positioning them such that terrain makes it difficult for ground units to hit them. What they don't care about is collision/pathing with your own ground units.
And tanks are viable in TvZ and TvT. They just aren't viable in TvP at highest levels (or maybe they're viable but not optimal, but we don't know because high-level play is optimal play).
I don't see the problem with different units being used in different matchups. Liberator being the single target/lower range/smaller area option while tanks are splash/higher range/higher area. Certainly it's preferable to Blizzard removing the liberator and fucking around for six months trying to make tanks viable in TvP and not broken in TvZ and TvT, and then giving up so we're back to HoTS with terrans multidropping all the things all the time until their wrists break.
|
On January 24 2017 09:22 Major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 09:18 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
there's still too much overlap between tanks and liberators.. with liberators being the superior unit. it doesn't need to be in the game at all XD? really? u even play this game? they dont overlap at all. tanks are slow take long to siege normally, do 1 shot and die. while libs make u able to fight straigh on get multiple shot. and kill keys lets remove liberator. so i cant kill a single ultra. sounds genious
yes I play and I watch a ton of starcraft
and I don't feel like liberators are needed in this game. they're IMO just like how swarm hosts used to be. they are simple to execute, boring to watch, and extremely taxing to avoid.
you play terran.. i dont expect your opinions to be neutral
|
Well yes they "care about terrain" as in making it harder for the enemy. But that's the point, it's a flying unit which can do exactly that rather easily. (so in reality the other units "care"/are limited by it) At the point where it was added it also did a lot more than that, it countered mutalisks/light air, it gave siege potential and harass. Right now it's not that bad anymore, but it's still an extremely crucial unit which does things other units were designed to do in the first place. If we are positive we can say "hey it's ok to have units which overlap/ are used in different matchups" but to me it looks more like blizzard bandaid fixing things with one unit.
TBF though, this might not be a liberator problem but rather a "in sc2 air units in general are too strong in comparison to ground antiair" one.
But hey maybe it's also just a dps issue, was pretty insanse tbh
|
Well i play zerg, but seems like this is the right way from what i've been hearing from Protoss players.
For futher patches i suggest removing reaper grenade and addressing carriers.
I honestly think Carrier is a dumb amove unit that adds nothing to the game in terms of strategy, but it seems that Blizzard really like them, so they should either buff Hydra AA or tone down interceptors.
|
A step in the right direction.
I agree with Classic, nerf Widow mine, as he said, they have too high damage for the cost. The terran doesnt even feel the hurt from losing widow mines because they are so cheap. ie. increase their cost or decrease their damage.
|
On January 24 2017 10:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yes they "care about terrain" as in making it harder for the enemy. But that's the point, it's a flying unit which can do exactly that rather easily. (so in reality the other units "care"/are limited by it)
I don't see the need to make things harder for the sake of being hard. Right now I still see top terrans (most often foreigners, but mid-level koreans too) routinely fucking up their liberator positioning/sieging on top of stalker balls/losing their liberators to static-d. If the only guy who can handle this stuff properly is Ty, then it's a sign that the unit is difficult enough to use, even if it looks easy in isolation.
Right now it's not that bad anymore, but it's still an extremely crucial unit which does things other units were designed to do in the first place. If we are positive we can say "hey it's ok to have units which overlap/ are used in different matchups" but to me it looks more like blizzard bandaid fixing things with one unit.
When LotV came out they wanted a positional unit so they introduced the Liberator, and, instead of buffing tank damage they made it a mini-reaver with medivac pickup. So I don't see it as a bandaid, more a consequence of wanting to do something "cool" with the tank and adding some form of space-control, which wasn't a thing that existed before LotV (tanks were too weak).
Now they're both positional units because tankivacs were bad for the game, but still very different in how they operate, so both are used in different match ups. I don't see an easy solution to making tanks a replacement for liberators in TvP, so if the alternative is doing something awkward or hackish with tanks (like adding +shield damage as well as +armored) to make them work, how is that better?
|
I'm not against shifting "fighting power" away from the liberator towards other units. Bio with lib support is obviously very strong in TvP, and i'm kinda sick of seeing every single pro TvP being bio mine libs.
However maybe it's time to think about other terran options. If liberators don't 2shot gate units (and that's a huuuuge deal in TvP), maybe some very underused other terran options could be buffed (thors in TvP? Banshees in TvP? Ravens in TvP? Hellbats in TvP?).
I dunno, i suppose we'll have to see how this will turn out, but i would much rather see a nerf of the liberator's rate of fire so that lib isn't that strong in "mindless" harass instead of being weaker infight.
|
I think the fact that hydras are no longer 1 shot is huge. Same with High Templar / Sentry not being 1 shot either.. Like I think the direction blizzard is heading in is right however for protoss I would just say revert tempest back to 4 supply keep their anti air range the same give them 8 ground range (So they only do their job vs air). This way they can trade with a unit they are meant to trade with, the liberators. As for Zerg they're going to be getting +10 hp to hydras.. Is there going to be some type of compensation Terran gets or anything? Also don't get me wrong I think Terran is very powerful right now but id much rather see lib range nerfed than the liberators damage reduced by 10.
|
I totally agree about the Liberator change
It is a broken unit - free win unit
WM + liber = army
|
Liberators aren't even that big of a deal for me in PvT... honestly it's the Widow Mine drops that are the problem. They take almost no skill to execute but can be pretty much game ending. It literally just takes all fun out of the game.
Liberators force you to go Stargate to defend Widow Mine drops, and with the Oracle change that's a lot harder than it used to be.
I think if they can add something like a fusion core requirement for Liberators, Protoss players can open Robo to more reliably deal with Widow mine drops without fearing a Liberator follow up.
What do you guys think?
Honestly, for me PvT feels broken at an APM/skill level.... the early game aggression/harass options for Terran take multiples more clicks/apm to deal with than to execute. Defending a widow mine drop with Stargate can shut it down completely, but one tiny little fuck up and bam, 10 probes dead. Game over.
|
On January 24 2017 09:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Just because sc2 is the best modern product overall doesn't mean that a lot of its parts cannot be improved/criticized.
Why not discuss potential "problems" on a case by case basis? Having fun/Being happy with a product doesn't mean it's the best it could be. It's imo important to try to understand WHY you like/dislike some things and how these things interfere with the goals of said game (rts concepts here basically).
the consumer's "alternative" is to play a different RTS. the game designer's "alternative" is to raise money and make their own game. i'm a consumer.
|
On January 24 2017 12:21 DinoMight wrote:
Liberators aren't even that big of a deal for me in PvT... honestly it's the Widow Mine drops that are the problem. They take almost no skill to execute but can be pretty much game ending. It literally just takes all fun out of the game.
Liberators force you to go Stargate to defend Widow Mine drops, and with the Oracle change that's a lot harder than it used to be.
I think if they can add something like a fusion core requirement for Liberators, Protoss players can open Robo to more reliably deal with Widow mine drops without fearing a Liberator follow up.
What do you guys think?
Honestly, for me PvT feels broken at an APM/skill level.... the early game aggression/harass options for Terran take multiples more clicks/apm to deal with than to execute. Defending a widow mine drop with Stargate can shut it down completely, but one tiny little fuck up and bam, 10 probes dead. Game over.
im going to speak for me only here. as terran the only reason i make mines is because the existence of the oracle at all.opening 3 rax stim after expanding is completely killed by fast oracle as well as opening with hellions or anything else. you are forced to get at least a mine in tvp, and if you don't you'll be sorry you did. you will always take damage from the oracle and you cannot stop it. even if the mine gets the first one, the second one will still get you amazing benefits, ignoring the speed at which it punishes and undefended mineral line. at least when a mine gets in your base you can sacrifice one worker(provided it gets burrowed at all, which is rare for me) and its over for the most part. thats more you can say for the oracle. that unit shouldn't even be in the game. its totally stupid and allows you to see every movement of the terran army provided you can keep it alive,which shouldn't be hard given its insane speed... i mean look at the standard tvp opening right now, done with the best success currently by innovation. it opens reaper expand after checking things out with an scv to scout(which is insanely hard considering at any point before you stim you can die to a myriad of all-ins, cheeses, and timings) which is followed up by two mines, then two tanks. the mines are to try to mitigate oracle "harass" and the tanks are to hold blink stalker and glaive adept attacks. this is your game plan as terran before you even get in the game. as a low level master player, and even for the greats, they cannot just counter one thing with their opener, because the scouting is so hard, and even when you invest scv mining time, a reaper, and scans, you still might not see the tell that can help you counter one timing from protoss early. in my opinion the talent the top terran players have at scouting and reading protoss is amazing.
tldr: id go eye for eye, remove the oracle and the mine from the game. ive hated both units since they're introduction, along with the viper and they haven't gotten any more fun to play against over the year either.
|
do you think if you put the 10 best terrans in a room and gave them a month to work out a no liberator, marine-tank-mine build for PvT, they could come up with something viable? I mean maybe. I think post-tank buff people don't realize the real strength of the tank. Just use liberators, they're just better, aka unbalanced.
If removing liberators was on the table for terran , there may need another slight change (like marauders), but I'm all for it. Blizzard in one of their blog posts said they didn't want to add units that overlap, yet they added the liberator... I really do not like many post-Wol units, but I also hate balance whining because I'm only diamond league. I think protoss players need to continue to speak up as these patches are rolling out like they have been recently. There's still a lot of broken stuff people aren't taking about like auto-turret damage.
|
I don't see the need to make things harder for the sake of being hard. Right now I still see top terrans (most often foreigners, but mid-level koreans too) routinely fucking up their liberator positioning/sieging on top of stalker balls/losing their liberators to static-d. If the only guy who can handle this stuff properly is Ty, then it's a sign that the unit is difficult enough to use, even if it looks easy in isolation.
lol what? u cant be seriously saying that shift queing a liberator on top of static d makes the unit hard to use....
liberators are redonculously ez to use compared compared to how hard they are to deal with...
you cant really argue with that...
|
Biggest problem with the Liberator right now is that you NEED Stalkers or Phoenixes to deal with it early, and neither of these things are particularly good against stim bio / cyclones.
At least tanks are ground units and you're not forced into making a specific unit just to fight them. You can catch them unsieged and actually shoot at them. Liberators require AA and even then they can fly away.
|
On January 24 2017 09:07 Major wrote:
this is terrible. blizzard dont even follow their own game its kinda sad. without liberators being broken as they were. u simply cannot win fights since the marauder got nerfed so heavely at start of lotv. really what makes tvp strong early game is fact
u can do a timing push 2-3 tank bio and its hard for protoss to stop but now days it isnt even that hard to stop
protoss started to figure this out and stop dieing to it. so nerfing liberator is completly pointless.
my solution woulda been this nerf tank damage by some porcetange and in the same patch u nerf ravager so tank can deal with them still somewhat good, since u cant pick up em anymore.
sometimes i wonder if blizzard even listen to ppl that play their game or they just randomly make things up. so sad i wanna see terran win tvp fights with libs being bad in fights not 1 shotting templars / sentry and 3shotting stalker is huge. right now all fights center aboiut terran hopefully killing all stalkers so they dont get run over by just how much worse bio got since maruader split damage
Your proposal totally breaks ZvP for Zerg. Ravagers are still useful in this matchup.
|
As much Terrans don't want to admit, PvT is really imbalance right now and a change is needed.
Of course it's never a pleasure to be nerfed, but liberator will remain a strong unit, and the nerf is small.
|
I really don't see why the Liberator needs to be changed for PvT. That match up is already the largest Protoss winrate we witness in Starcraft, period.
|
On January 24 2017 17:44 Vanadiel wrote:
I really don't see why the Liberator needs to be changed for PvT. That match up is already the largest Protoss winrate we witness in Starcraft, period.
It's the lowest it has ever been. Protoss could drop under 40% winrate in PvT this month.
|
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free?
tl:dr - Instead of constructive feedback we have a vicious cycle which is being used by vocal randoms to insult blizzard employees
|
On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free?
Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes.
Communities of any game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. If you think this is specific to starcraft then you're sadly mistaken.
|
On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know.
Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt"..
And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update...
|
On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update...
Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately.
|
Sure, you can't only do changes related to the postings in that forum (or any other)
But there are still some hard facts like statistics ... there are progamers who are giving input, and (at least i hope so) developers also play this game.
In the end all we can do here is just make suggestions ... of course it is up to the developers choosing the right ones. And for sure not an easy task.
|
On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately.
It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them
|
On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them
They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others
|
On January 24 2017 15:03 DinoMight wrote:
At least tanks are ground units and you're not forced into making a specific unit just to fight them. You can catch them unsieged and actually shoot at them. Liberators require AA and even then they can fly away.
Exactly this.
There is much more interaction with tanks than libs especially in PvT - you either build stalkers or go Stagate. Vs tanks You can try to split your units before engaging to minimize dmg taken, surround them, drop on them whereas vs libs there is none such things. On top of that there is little potentional for micro vs libs. Tanks are just much more interesting and probably even easier to balance as they actually have some weeknesses which you can exploit.
That's why everyone is suggesting to "replace" liberator area of control role with tanks.
From my perspective if that means buffing tank even further - so be it.
|
On January 24 2017 17:54 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 17:44 Vanadiel wrote:
I really don't see why the Liberator needs to be changed for PvT. That match up is already the largest Protoss winrate we witness in Starcraft, period. It's the lowest it has ever been. Protoss could drop under 40% winrate in PvT this month.
That's just your opinion. I'm just presenting alternative facts.
|
If you guys want to see Hydralisks used in ZvT vs Bio, no amount of Hydralisk buff will actually achieve that without completely destroying PvZ. What will actually achieve this would be a change to the Lurker so that it's good vs Bio. Lurkers would need to be able to 2 shot Marines or it's just not happening. 20+10(armoured)->30 damage and nerf it a bit by tweaking Spike travel time could work.
|
On January 24 2017 05:25 Nerchio wrote:I could write more but there are more personal changes where I disagree with the design like medivac boost being free and should cost 10-15 energy but some people will not take this post serious I guess
I've been talking to active, non-pro players as well as complete casual viewers about Medivac boost for a while, nice to see we aren't totally off the wall thinking they should have a cost to boost.
|
On January 24 2017 05:59 Foxxan wrote:Which means nothing in the end. What is needed to change can be entirely subjective, and with blizzards view on things nothing will change pretty much if we go on how they have done this before.
That entire sentence is most likely there to keep people (and trolls) who don't have anything else to add or complain about from crying out as if this is the last change they are ever going to do ever. Since I noticed them adding it to many of their posts, I've noticed that sort of behavior go away a little bit. Although, of course people are still finding the smallest thing to complain about anyway. <_<
|
On January 24 2017 10:49 Parcelleus wrote:
A step in the right direction.
I agree with Classic, nerf Widow mine, as he said, they have too high damage for the cost. The terran doesnt even feel the hurt from losing widow mines because they are so cheap. ie. increase their cost or decrease their damage.
I also agree with Classic about tanks, they are still a little too strong. Please take note Blizzard.
|
On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others
To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded.
Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it.
|
On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it.
It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job.
They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers...
And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil.
Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized.
Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened.
And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't.
3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it.
|
On January 24 2017 07:45 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +
I can check for the alternative, because it happened
...
So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again.
I don't get it. You're not considering the alternative. You're just giving an example supporting what you're saying. Two ways I can think of to consider the alternative: #1 You point out times when the community was able to identify something as problematic and it ended up never being solved by players or by maps, so it never got solved until the game itself changed. But what about the times when the community identifies something and it does resolve itself without changes to the game itself? Doing your analysis in hindsight prevents you from testing yourself against this at all. Community feedback is like a shotgun blast and you focus on the pellets that hit the target and forget about all the ones that miss. The ones that miss are the alternative. #2 You never know when a problem is actually unsolvable. BW was played unchanged for so many years and radically new strategies were still being invented (that did not depend on new maps). When Blizzard doesn't change something for a long time, and then finally does change it, how do you know a player's solution wasn't right around the corner? Maybe Blizzard didn't wait long enough. So the alternative here lies in a hypothetical future. If Blizzard quickly changed the rules of the game, players are robbed of the opportunity to solve their problems strategically, which is the essence of the game. There's no point to a cycle of "play the game" -> "encounter an obstacle" -> "wait for patch to mix things up again". It's okay for MOBAs with 100 heroes and endless team comps but not okay for RTS with 3 races. You'd be creating situations where players encounter an obstacle and don't even try very hard to solve it, but rather they just bypass it. They can do some all-ins or make unusual compositions for that one matchup for this one season because next season they know it's going to be changed.
The very difference between BW and SC2 is that SC2 gives players less wiggle room, less room to breath and everything is much more streamlined and speeded up. Therefore developments and possible solutions out of players happen in a more narrow path, are more predictable as well as happen faster.
Also when SC/BW was released global esports didn't exist yet, replays didn't exist and everything was taking place in an environment that wasn't optimized for progaming. Hence information was scarce and retrieval and distribution of information took longer. It was majorly limited to those guys who a) put extreme efforts to create information (observing, using external data and later replay tools for analysis) and b) those who started already then to extend their networks to an international/global bandwidth.
SC2 built on that foundation of broodwar. Information and analysing tools were delivered with release. A much higher amount of expert players with a much higher networking degree exchange information much faster.
What was true for broodwar can not be just be applied equally to SC2. It is true what the dude said that it was very much predictable that certain situations weren't going to be solved by players themselves and obviously needed quicker help from administration instead of leaving them for months upon months in an unbalanced and frustrating state.
This is what is called progress. If that's good or bad is another story. It also can be held responsible for why we experience SC2 less fulfilling than BW to a certain degree. It was much more satisfying to explore these new grounds and contribute to their development back in the days.
|
On January 24 2017 21:37 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it. It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job. They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers... And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil. Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized. Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened. And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't. 3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it.
I agree that a lot of feedback isn't very civil and/or well thought out. Nonetheless you should be able expect a commercial company like Blizzard to be able to deal with their customers, right? It's on them to separate unconstructive from constructive feedback. Not on us. The community of other games is just as much toxic or even more toxic but it doesn't influence the quality of the game development process (good example for that is LoL).
Back to the issues at hand, though. At this point it's becoming very clear that the Dev team only ever pushes minimal changes (like number changes on unit/building/ability stats). This is not design. It is maintenance (balance maintenance to be exact). I don't know whether this is because of a lack of courage to pursue sweeping changes or inability to find the right set of changes. What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely.
The issues that you described for example are not manageable via stat changes. To balance 3 Rax Reaper the grenade and or grenade damage would have to be removed. Another option would be to reinstate the Techlab requirement for Reapers. Liberators clearly have to much range, come out way too early and should not be reactorable.
I completely understand people getting frustrated over this. Personally, I don't see myself getting back into the game if this is the way things are handled. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other people feel either.
|
arent the problems in pvt right now the pushes that come before the liberator ?
|
On January 24 2017 22:39 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 21:37 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it. It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job. They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers... And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil. Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized. Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened. And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't. 3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it. I agree that a lot of feedback isn't very civil and/or well thought out. Nonetheless you should be able expect a commercial company like Blizzard to be able to deal with their customers, right? It's on them to separate unconstructive from constructive feedback. Not on us. The community of other games is just as much toxic or even more toxic but it doesn't influence the quality of the game development process (good example for that is LoL). Back to the issues at hand, though. At this point it's becoming very clear that the Dev team only ever pushes minimal changes (like number changes on unit/building/ability stats). This is not design. It is maintenance ( balance maintenance to be exact). I don't know whether this is because of a lack of courage to pursue sweeping changes or inability to find the right set of changes. What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely. The issues that you described for example are not manageable via stat changes. To balance 3 Rax Reaper the grenade and or grenade damage would have to be removed. Another option would be to reinstate the Techlab requirement for Reapers. Liberators clearly have to much range, come out way too early and should not be reactorable. I completely understand people getting frustrated over this. Personally, I don't see myself getting back into the game if this is the way things are handled. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other people feel either.
They tried design change with 3.8, but hydra buff was clearly too much and dt blink is useless. But tanks have changed a lot obviously.
The issue i mentionned was simply an example out of dozens...and grenade damage is a stat change :p
It's weird for you to say "Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions."
And then in your next post "What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely."
You can't listen to everyone for the reason stated in your first sentence...blizzard has to make the choices, i'm sure they heard about tons of ideas, big or small, doesn't mean they're only ignoring the big ones specifically.
On January 24 2017 22:48 KOtical wrote:
arent the problems in pvt right now the pushes that come before the liberator ?
I honeslty feel like 75 is too much of a nerf, 80 would 3 shot stalkers but still 2 shot adepts/zealots. Wouldn't be surprised if libs become useless apart from harassing, and mine are still too strong.
The most popular idea to remove bonus splash damage on shield sounds good.
|
I´m personally of the opinion that the real strength of the tank in TvP lies in the early game pushes where most of the protoss defense is gateway and that could be something worth trying to make changes to. Perhaps reintroduce siege mode at a lower cost but slow down the timings or something in that ball park.
Mid and lategame the tank is pretty weak. I feel like it is a point that is often ommitted in statements regarding the strength of the tank. Once the protoss army begins to be heavy robo or chargelots the tanks become significantly worse. It has very high synergy with libs but the libs are the core of the damage output not the tanks. Without tanks libs are fine, without libs tanks are trash.
Libs are the core of the damage output of lategame terran armies and I think it´s a little scary changing the math by this much. Bio is strong for a while but once there are multiple robos pumping and templars join the fray bio does not have the damage output to compete and if the libs are heavily toned down perhaps it´s worth looking at another way to get reliable damage output into the regular terran ground army.
I feel like this patch doesn´t address the real issue of the early timings centered around bio tank with lib support and potentially creates other issues later on where the lategame armies might not have the proper damage output. Now I will say that trying to tone down liberators, even more so than this, in favour of other units being stronger leading to less hard counters might be a good direction to head in but between disruptors collosus and templars I think something would need a redesign to bring terran ground armies up to par in a world without libs.
Oh and on a sidenote the mines are the #1 line of defense against mass adept spam, please for the love of god... not again
|
As to fixing carriers in PvZ, would it be an option to give corruptors a hive-tech upgrade that allows them to be stronger vs carriers? It could be additional armor (comparable to chitenous plating for ultras) or an extra bonus vs massive?
Right now it feels like remaxing on corruptors (say 30 or so, which is 4500/3000) does not even make a dent in 10 carriers (which is 3500+800/2500). I dont expect to flat out win that battle, but at least I would expect some carriers to go down 
|
On January 24 2017 22:51 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 22:39 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 21:37 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it. It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job. They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers... And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil. Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized. Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened. And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't. 3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it. I agree that a lot of feedback isn't very civil and/or well thought out. Nonetheless you should be able expect a commercial company like Blizzard to be able to deal with their customers, right? It's on them to separate unconstructive from constructive feedback. Not on us. The community of other games is just as much toxic or even more toxic but it doesn't influence the quality of the game development process (good example for that is LoL). Back to the issues at hand, though. At this point it's becoming very clear that the Dev team only ever pushes minimal changes (like number changes on unit/building/ability stats). This is not design. It is maintenance ( balance maintenance to be exact). I don't know whether this is because of a lack of courage to pursue sweeping changes or inability to find the right set of changes. What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely. The issues that you described for example are not manageable via stat changes. To balance 3 Rax Reaper the grenade and or grenade damage would have to be removed. Another option would be to reinstate the Techlab requirement for Reapers. Liberators clearly have to much range, come out way too early and should not be reactorable. I completely understand people getting frustrated over this. Personally, I don't see myself getting back into the game if this is the way things are handled. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other people feel either. They tried design change with 3.8, but hydra buff was clearly too much and dt blink is useless. But tanks have changed a lot obviously. The issue i mentionned was simply an example out of dozens...and grenade damage is a stat change :p It's weird for you to say "Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions." And then in your next post "What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely." You can't listen to everyone for the reason stated in your first sentence...blizzard has to make the choices, i'm sure they heard about tons of ideas, big or small, doesn't mean they're only ignoring the big ones specifically.
First of all, as far as I can tell without looking up the change log, the only real design change was the Cyclone and removal of Tankivacs. Everything else was just a number change.
If they don't ignore big changes specifically—as you say—, why aren't there any in the patches? Can you think of any recent big design change since 3.8?
Just to be clear, there is for example a lot of feedback to try Protoss design changes. Sure, there is no real agreement about what the solution should be; but it's pretty clear from the posts I've read that a lot of people consider the Mothership Core/ Photon Overcharge badly designed and that Gateway units should be changed to be stronger in straight up fights (this is what I dislike most as well).
None of the patches have addressed this. I don't see why it cannot be expected of the Dev team to analyze the suggestions, put together a patch with Protoss design changes and let us try them.
|
On January 24 2017 23:53 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 22:51 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 22:39 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 21:37 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:
[quote]
Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes.
Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it. It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job. They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers... And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil. Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized. Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened. And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't. 3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it. I agree that a lot of feedback isn't very civil and/or well thought out. Nonetheless you should be able expect a commercial company like Blizzard to be able to deal with their customers, right? It's on them to separate unconstructive from constructive feedback. Not on us. The community of other games is just as much toxic or even more toxic but it doesn't influence the quality of the game development process (good example for that is LoL). Back to the issues at hand, though. At this point it's becoming very clear that the Dev team only ever pushes minimal changes (like number changes on unit/building/ability stats). This is not design. It is maintenance ( balance maintenance to be exact). I don't know whether this is because of a lack of courage to pursue sweeping changes or inability to find the right set of changes. What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely. The issues that you described for example are not manageable via stat changes. To balance 3 Rax Reaper the grenade and or grenade damage would have to be removed. Another option would be to reinstate the Techlab requirement for Reapers. Liberators clearly have to much range, come out way too early and should not be reactorable. I completely understand people getting frustrated over this. Personally, I don't see myself getting back into the game if this is the way things are handled. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other people feel either. They tried design change with 3.8, but hydra buff was clearly too much and dt blink is useless. But tanks have changed a lot obviously. The issue i mentionned was simply an example out of dozens...and grenade damage is a stat change :p It's weird for you to say "Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions." And then in your next post "What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely." You can't listen to everyone for the reason stated in your first sentence...blizzard has to make the choices, i'm sure they heard about tons of ideas, big or small, doesn't mean they're only ignoring the big ones specifically. First of all, as far as I can tell without looking up the change log, the only real design change was the Cyclone and removal of Tankivacs. Everything else was just a number change. If they don't ignore big changes specifically—as you say—, why aren't there any in the patches? Can you think of any recent big design change since 3.8? Just to be clear, there is for example a lot of feedback to try Protoss design changes. Sure, there is no real agreement about what the solution should be; but it's pretty clear from the posts I've read that a lot of people consider the Mothership Core/ Photon Overcharge badly designed and that Gateway units should be changed to be stronger in straight up fights (this is what I dislike most as well). None of the patches have addressed this. I don't see why it cannot be expected of the Dev team to analyze the suggestions, put together a patch with Protoss design changes and let us try them.
I'm not saying they aren't ignoring big changes, i'm saying they also ignore tons of small changes, hence the use of the word "specifically". In the end it obviously makes more sense to do more little changes, and a few big ones, just like they tried with 3.8.
And whose to say they never considered huge design changes? Not doing something =/= not considering it.
If we're still stuck with photon overcharge it's because blizzard is satisfied with keeping it for now, otherwise they would have done something in 3.8.
|
On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 18:08 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:01 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
These 4 pages exacly proves my point why community is a problem... Major here speaks about something... whole other random player disagrees with him and still crying about liberator...
I read every single post here and I tried to thing as a game designer... and there is only confusion...
Everysingle TL thread is like girls on perion having a bad day complaining about everything and if anything came from one side it will be shutted down by the other and so on...
You guys need to realize that they might be clueless from clueless chaotic feedback aswell...
Also no shit that DK might not read reddit or tl... every 2nd post is someone calling if F words, bad words, insults... Who would read that in his free time for free? Theres also people with constructive criticisms, regardless of how qualified they are as far as balance goes. Communities of every game have always been this way if you looked at every single comment, it doesn't prove anything more than what we already know. Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt".. And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update...
And instead of arguing the actual topic here (liberators, their potential overlap, etc) you rather make a general statement about how people in your optinion approach these threads.
How is that better? It's completely useless. Why don't you try to discuss the things instead? You are the first one who attacks avilo every single community update, and no you do not attack his arguments you attack his whole post with ad hominem. How in the world is that better? It's not. (and no i don't even like avilo's personality one bit, but that's basically irrelevant)
Yes you are right that there are lots of opinions going around, but you also have to realize that any opinion without arguments and reasoning is basically worthless. "i like the game as it is" doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't mean that any change you could make is bad, it simply means you are content with the status quo and quite possibly never thought about the game and its problems to begin with.
Sure there are people who imply that sc2 has a lot of problems (i would include myself here :D) but f you disagree argue the specific topics. Do i "enjoy" sc2? Yeah i play it every week because it's the best rts you can play atm with matchmaking. Do i think it could be way better? Yes absolutely.
Blizzard says "Thanks for continuing to work with us to make StarCraft II the best game that it can be!"
I mean it's PR but if there is a little bit of truth in there any discussion which goes in depth enough is potentially a good thing. I still think blizzard doesn't make it clear enough which goals they have and what solutions are beign discussed exactly, but the community still thinks that carriers are a problem for example. And not only a problem balance wise, also one design wise (TLO for example stated it's the most borign unit in the game).
So if we really wanna make sc2 the best game it can be, why not address this? Where are the interesting carrier interactions? (their solution to the carrier over the years was an ability which simply releases all the dmg at one point, and making it extremely cheap to build interceptors. Extremely dedicated to make it work in a fun way :>) I am wating for another "i like the carrier as it is" post without any arguments btw
Is this post positive enough? No probably not but how can you be actually positive when there is almost no multiplayer work put in? (at least none we can see)
|
Well really big changes are hard to implement for a competitive game.
Technically Blizzard has the chance to use it on test maps, for sure ... but i'm affraid the actual player base isn't anymore big enough that this is enough to get results if the change is really good or the opposite. Especially when most of the progamers don't play such test maps too much anyways, cause they have to concentrate on the actual game (patch) to be successful.
Back to the actual change:
still think nerfing wm would be more important. They just deal way too much (splash) damage for the low cost and very early time in the game you can get them. And they work extremely well in late game szenarios with tanks und libs too.
And yeah, wm hits can be entertaining to watch, but in the end it is also sort of boring ... not a lot of micro involved and so on. Sort of the same as the "war of the world" colossus wars in HoTS ... also sort of entertaining for a while, but sooner or later it gets boring.
Although a nerf to the lib is some sort of necessary too. But the more important thing in that regard is the mappool ... as long as there are too many maps, where libs can be too hard abused nerfs to the unit are unimportant. If you can siege the enemy mineral line and the lib can't get hit by anything it doesnt matter if the lib deals 80 damage or 70 oder 200 ... it will kill probes/ drones anyways, and you can't do anything about it (or at least you can't mine if you pull them).
|
On January 25 2017 00:07 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 23:53 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 22:51 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 22:39 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 21:37 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 21:23 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On January 24 2017 18:32 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:26 PharaphobiaSC wrote:On January 24 2017 18:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 24 2017 18:11 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but its always like "A wants that, B wants the other and C wants the exacly other way"... Ppl say "listel to progamers" Major mention tank... "don't listen to Major.. Liberator is a problem"... "Lib and tank role overlap" Major: "No it doesnt"..
And I'm here sitting like "what the f..." is going on here? and it is the same old song in every feedback update... Stick to giving your own feedback and ignoring stupid comments then, because it's not something that will go away any time soon unfortunately. It will never go away, but I'm curious when they realize how retarded it is and why Blizz ignores them They either don't realize or they do but get replaced by others To be fair, how would you realize that your suggestion is not good if there is no feedback. I have never seen the Dev team give a profound explanation of a specific change. They just put these changes up for feedback but we never get an in-depth reasoning for why a change was picked and why others were discarded (or for that matter what the overall target is). To me the whole process seems very obscure and communication unnecessarily indirect and backhanded. Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions. We're only here to provide input for solutions they did not come up with themselves. The onus must be on the Dev team to evaluate community proposals and put them together in order to be tested in a balance patch. I mean, after all this is their job, right? It's not the community's job. We've paid to be able to play the best strategy game there is (next to BW ofc ) not to be able to design it. It's not that they don't realize their suggestions are good or bad, i meant that lots of players don't realize their attitude and anger towards blizzard is unjustified, they think they would do a better job. They don't look at the state of balance in a competitive environment from each race point of view, they just look at one particular week of pro games or what they're losing to on ladder and suggest things based upon that without testing and checkign numbers... And i know perfectly well why you cannot expect coherent solutions from such a large community, that's exactly why i suggested to ignore the majority of comments about balance or whatever blizzard is doing wrong, unless it's constructive and civil. Now when you end up in situations where liberators have an untouchable spot to harass mineral lines, because lack of testing, i totally understand why blizzard gets criticized. Things like that happened on dusk towers for its entire lifespan, they didn't fix it, but they still manage to bring in a map with the same flaw this new season? Balance is hard but you'd think they could prevent such problems considering they already happened. And before people tell me that liberator is the problem, in this case no, it isn't. 3 rax reaper was too strong on half the map pool, this is one specific spot on one specific map, you could literally do a quick hotfix and be done with it. I agree that a lot of feedback isn't very civil and/or well thought out. Nonetheless you should be able expect a commercial company like Blizzard to be able to deal with their customers, right? It's on them to separate unconstructive from constructive feedback. Not on us. The community of other games is just as much toxic or even more toxic but it doesn't influence the quality of the game development process (good example for that is LoL). Back to the issues at hand, though. At this point it's becoming very clear that the Dev team only ever pushes minimal changes (like number changes on unit/building/ability stats). This is not design. It is maintenance ( balance maintenance to be exact). I don't know whether this is because of a lack of courage to pursue sweeping changes or inability to find the right set of changes. What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely. The issues that you described for example are not manageable via stat changes. To balance 3 Rax Reaper the grenade and or grenade damage would have to be removed. Another option would be to reinstate the Techlab requirement for Reapers. Liberators clearly have to much range, come out way too early and should not be reactorable. I completely understand people getting frustrated over this. Personally, I don't see myself getting back into the game if this is the way things are handled. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other people feel either. They tried design change with 3.8, but hydra buff was clearly too much and dt blink is useless. But tanks have changed a lot obviously. The issue i mentionned was simply an example out of dozens...and grenade damage is a stat change :p It's weird for you to say "Another point which I want to make is that you cannot expect a diverse community of players such as this to provide coherent arguments or solutions." And then in your next post "What we can savely say however—and that's really sad actually—, is that the part of the community which wants big changes to the game is being ignored completely." You can't listen to everyone for the reason stated in your first sentence...blizzard has to make the choices, i'm sure they heard about tons of ideas, big or small, doesn't mean they're only ignoring the big ones specifically. First of all, as far as I can tell without looking up the change log, the only real design change was the Cyclone and removal of Tankivacs. Everything else was just a number change. If they don't ignore big changes specifically—as you say—, why aren't there any in the patches? Can you think of any recent big design change since 3.8? Just to be clear, there is for example a lot of feedback to try Protoss design changes. Sure, there is no real agreement about what the solution should be; but it's pretty clear from the posts I've read that a lot of people consider the Mothership Core/ Photon Overcharge badly designed and that Gateway units should be changed to be stronger in straight up fights (this is what I dislike most as well). None of the patches have addressed this. I don't see why it cannot be expected of the Dev team to analyze the suggestions, put together a patch with Protoss design changes and let us try them. I'm not saying they aren't ignoring big changes, i'm saying they also ignore tons of small changes, hence the use of the word "specifically". In the end it obviously makes more sense to do more little changes, and a few big ones, just like they tried with 3.8. And whose to say they never considered huge design changes? Not doing something =/= not considering it. If we're still stuck with photon overcharge it's because blizzard is satisfied with keeping it for now, otherwise they would have done something in 3.8.
Sure, but all we get are minimal changes. We don't know if they have considered bigger changes. And to the point, I don't see how their approach is making the game better. Does it really make more sense to change almost nothing and disregard player requests if the game ultimately is supposed to be better?
Why does it matter if Blizzard is satisfied with their own solutions? They need to satisfy us—the players of this game—by finding excellent solutions which improve gameplay and enjoyment while maintaining balance.
On January 25 2017 00:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Is this post positive enough? No probably not but how can you be actually positive when there is almost no multiplayer work put in? (at least none we can see)
Exactly. I mean, from what we get, it doesn't seem like they're doing much. And if they are doing a lot of internal testing, I would like to hear about it.
There have been a couple of changes which they supposedly tried internally but effectively decided against without giving any reasoning other than "we didn't like it" (Goliath addition and Stalker damage increase for example). I definitely would have loved to try these changes.
|
On January 25 2017 00:28 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 00:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Is this post positive enough? No probably not but how can you be actually positive when there is almost no multiplayer work put in? (at least none we can see)
Exactly. I mean, from what we get, it doesn't seem like they're doing much. And if they are doing a lot of internal testing, I would like to hear about it. There have been a couple of changes which they supposedly tried internally but effectively decided against without giving any reasoning other than "we didn't like it" (Goliath addition and Stalker damage increase for example). I definitely would have loved to try these changes.
Yeah i was hyped for ptr matchmaking being as accessible as it is right now. I thougt that would in fact mean constant testing of changes. Well i was wrong and i don't see why it isn't done if we believe their goal "to make sc2 the best it can be"
I guess in their mind it's already pretty close? I don't know.
Yeah there were a lot of changes tested internally if we can believe them. Even another take on unit pathing. Ofc we didn't even see a video if i recall correctly. These community updates should be way more in depth to explain what their specific goals are, what they consider as solutions, why they think a specific solution is the best bet atm, etc. Something with actual meat and not just empty phrases and a little bit of teasing. That way it looks like they don't work all that hard which might be wrong but yeah it's not visible to us in the slightest.
You could argue that we don't need to know everything, but if we pretend that is true david kim has absolutely no right to criticize the community for not brining solutions to the table. He did that a few times already though.
It's a mess really.
|
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game.
well did you play terran as successfully as you played protoss?
how do you know what's easy and what's not?
|
8748 Posts
On January 24 2017 21:40 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 07:45 NonY wrote:
I can check for the alternative, because it happened
...
So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again.
I don't get it. You're not considering the alternative. You're just giving an example supporting what you're saying. Two ways I can think of to consider the alternative: #1 You point out times when the community was able to identify something as problematic and it ended up never being solved by players or by maps, so it never got solved until the game itself changed. But what about the times when the community identifies something and it does resolve itself without changes to the game itself? Doing your analysis in hindsight prevents you from testing yourself against this at all. Community feedback is like a shotgun blast and you focus on the pellets that hit the target and forget about all the ones that miss. The ones that miss are the alternative. #2 You never know when a problem is actually unsolvable. BW was played unchanged for so many years and radically new strategies were still being invented (that did not depend on new maps). When Blizzard doesn't change something for a long time, and then finally does change it, how do you know a player's solution wasn't right around the corner? Maybe Blizzard didn't wait long enough. So the alternative here lies in a hypothetical future. If Blizzard quickly changed the rules of the game, players are robbed of the opportunity to solve their problems strategically, which is the essence of the game. There's no point to a cycle of "play the game" -> "encounter an obstacle" -> "wait for patch to mix things up again". It's okay for MOBAs with 100 heroes and endless team comps but not okay for RTS with 3 races. You'd be creating situations where players encounter an obstacle and don't even try very hard to solve it, but rather they just bypass it. They can do some all-ins or make unusual compositions for that one matchup for this one season because next season they know it's going to be changed. The very difference between BW and SC2 is that SC2 gives players less wiggle room, less room to breath and everything is much more streamlined and speeded up. Therefore developments and possible solutions out of players happen in a more narrow path, are more predictable as well as happen faster. Also when SC/BW was released global esports didn't exist yet, replays didn't exist and everything was taking place in an environment that wasn't optimized for progaming. Hence information was scarce and retrieval and distribution of information took longer. It was majorly limited to those guys who a) put extreme efforts to create information (observing, using external data and later replay tools for analysis) and b) those who started already then to extend their networks to an international/global bandwidth. SC2 built on that foundation of broodwar. Information and analysing tools were delivered with release. A much higher amount of expert players with a much higher networking degree exchange information much faster. What was true for broodwar can not be just be applied equally to SC2. It is true what the dude said that it was very much predictable that certain situations weren't going to be solved by players themselves and obviously needed quicker help from administration instead of leaving them for months upon months in an unbalanced and frustrating state. This is what is called progress. If that's good or bad is another story. It also can be held responsible for why we experience SC2 less fulfilling than BW to a certain degree. It was much more satisfying to explore these new grounds and contribute to their development back in the days.
new strats were being developed in bw even after replays had been available for years and hundreds of pros had been playing full time for years
solutions that come from the players are always seen as impossible until someone does it. that is the whole frustrating and difficult thing about this. if you think that when the community is quite convinced that something can never be solved with the current rules of the game, blizzard should make a change, then we have no common ground. i 100% know as a fact that the community has been wrong about these things and i like it when players are allowed to innovate in this way
i like when something seems impossible and a player solves it. regular balance changes makes that impossible. because i can tell you right now what the thought processes will be: someone does something "impossible" a few months after a patch -> "this patch hadn't really been figured out yet. people are just figuring it out now, not doing anything extraordinary." new patch hits, someone does something long thought impossible, not directly related to the patch changes -> "we can't compare this strategy now to how people were playing the last several patches. the game changes in complex and unpredictable ways. this couldn't have been done back then"
so nothing ever seems impossible. the game is in constant flux and you can never tell how long something has been "possible"
|
On January 25 2017 01:35 Ganseng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. well did you play terran as successfully as you played protoss? how do you know what's easy and what's not?
I play all the races - less Zerg but a good amount of Terran. I also just hosted a Diamond max tournament where Protoss had a 0% win rate vs Terran in series.
I can tell you for sure, a widow mine drop is much much much easier to execute than it is to defend. I don't think anyone can disagree here. You just boost in, press D, and burrow the mine. If it hits, it hits. Then you go back to macro.
As the Protoss player, you need to pull your probes, grab your observer/oracle whatever, get units to kill the widow mine... If the Terran sends mines to 2 bases at once this becomes orders of magnitude harder.
As Terran I regularly wipe entire mineral lines with these drops. Honestly, it feels broken AF. Nothing should be THIS punishing and hard to defend for a Diamond player (top 20% of the player base).
|
Everything is easier to execute than defend. That's just common sense.
If you're executing something, you know what you're doing. If you're defending something, you usually don't know you're defending it until shortly before defending it.
|
On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch.
i love RTS games and have since i was 12 when the genre was at its peak. People like me ( now 29 years old ) are not being replaced. And we'll never get replaced. Overwatch allows me to play competitively and go all out 100%. Use some strategy... engage in action... get really into it for a month.. live it .. eat it .. breath it. Then drop it for 2 months and never touch it. Then go back again to Overwatch. This is not possible with any kind of RTS game due to mechanics. Its far more frustrating get back into an RTS after you've had some time away from it than a game like Overwatch.
It does not matter what Blizzard does. The issue I've mentioned above will never go away. Also, people can get their big army fighting fix on tablets and smart phones now. The giant army battles with bullets flying everyone and hundreds of units clashing was the big pay off for mainstream players and in 2000 that was only possible on a PC. Now consumers have infinitely more choices.
Too many choices now. The entire RTS genre will continue to decline as games like Mobile Strike and Clash of Clans flourish and the PC crowd gravitates towards games like Overwatch that you can drop for a month and go back to it and still have a blast on day 1 of your return to the game.
i just enjoy SC2, CoH1 and RA3 for what they are. i'm not hoping there is some great renaissance. i realize all 3 of these games are doomed to a slow decline.
you'll be happier if you examine the entire forest.. realize the over all trend and then sit in amongst your trees and hit the "Find Match" button.
|
On January 25 2017 02:15 InfCereal wrote:
Everything is easier to execute than defend. That's just common sense.
If you're executing something, you know what you're doing. If you're defending something, you usually don't know you're defending it until shortly before defending it.
I don't mean planning / strategy. I mean *number of clicks*. The technical difficulty of defending a Widow Mine drop vs. executing it. One is significantly higher than the other.
Consider as well the downsides. If your widow mine drop fails, you've lost a widow mine. If it succeeds you can easily wipe 5-10 probes instantly.
Supply depot block the Protoss expansion, go factory first into widow mine drops. Safe against almost all cheese and still more economical. Then have a chance to instantly wipe the Protoss' economy while you macro up. Sounds fair right? Almost all my games go like this. I don't care about the pros. This is not fun. I don't want to play this.
^^ This is how you kill eSports, and why CSGO has half a million people watching their tournament right now.
|
On January 25 2017 02:21 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:15 InfCereal wrote:
Everything is easier to execute than defend. That's just common sense.
If you're executing something, you know what you're doing. If you're defending something, you usually don't know you're defending it until shortly before defending it. I don't mean planning / strategy. I mean *number of clicks*. The technical difficulty of defending a Widow Mine drop vs. executing it. One is significantly higher than the other. Consider as well the downsides. If your widow mine drop fails, you've lost a widow mine. If it succeeds you can easily wipe 5-10 probes instantly. Supply depot block the Protoss expansion, go factory first into widow mine drops. Safe against almost all cheese and still more economical. Then have a chance to instantly wipe the Protoss' economy while you macro up. Sounds fair right? Almost all my games go like this. I don't care about the pros. This is not fun. I don't want to play this. ^^ This is how you kill eSports, and why CSGO has half a million people watching their tournament right now.
funny because i switched to csgo shortly before hots came out, then came back for lotv because of how terrible the matchmaking experience is in csgo, and how much better lotv is than the previous expansions.
And csgo success has nothing to do with this, sc2 was gonna go down regardless, while cs basically went from actual dead game to number 1 thanks to skins and betting.
|
I really don't think that's a valid complaint.
You can't whine because the game is hard - nothing's going to change that.
|
On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game.
you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units.
This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were.
|
On January 25 2017 02:33 InfCereal wrote:
I really don't think that's a valid complaint.
You can't whine because the game is hard - nothing's going to change that.
I think he is complaining about a tactic easy to execute with high reward in comparison to how hard it is to defend it reasonably well (aka come out at 50:50)
This is on a spectrum somewhere, "the game is hard" is not an argument.
Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful)
|
On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were.
Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way.
I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against.
You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play.
Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game.
If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now.
|
On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:33 InfCereal wrote:
I really don't think that's a valid complaint.
You can't whine because the game is hard - nothing's going to change that. I think he is complaining about a tactic easy to execute with high reward in comparison to how hard it is to defend it reasonably well (aka come out at 50:50) This is on a spectrum somewhere, "the game is hard" is not an argument. Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful)
This. Thank you.
Of course the game is hard, but I'm saying this part of the game is disproportionately hard for one player.
Other forms of worker harass can be game ending without proper planning, too. DTs, Oracles. Widow mines without detection. I get it.
But even if you make all the proper things you need to defend it, you still need to execute perfectly. Pull the workers quick enough. Have your obs in place. Etc.
If you know an Oracle is coming and you build a Turret - that's it. You'll lose 1-2 workers at most and you don't need to spend any of your APM worrying about the Oracle.
That's what I'm talking about.
|
On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now.
The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was.
But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now.
Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay.
And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond
|
On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now.
well when you say get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. that sounds a lot like whining.
but when just talking about widow mines I agree that it's a very frustrating units to lose to. however there are a lot of things like that in sc2; oracles/DTs can instantly win you the game if the opponent is not prepared, baneling drops work similar to wm drops in that you instantly lose 10-15 workers if you react slightly to late, it's not just terran/widowmines that work like this.
|
On January 25 2017 02:45 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 InfCereal wrote:
I really don't think that's a valid complaint.
You can't whine because the game is hard - nothing's going to change that. I think he is complaining about a tactic easy to execute with high reward in comparison to how hard it is to defend it reasonably well (aka come out at 50:50) This is on a spectrum somewhere, "the game is hard" is not an argument. Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful) This. Thank you. Of course the game is hard, but I'm saying this part of the game is disproportionately hard for one player. Other forms of worker harass can be game ending without proper planning, too. DTs, Oracles. Widow mines without detection. I get it. But even if you make all the proper things you need to defend it, you still need to execute perfectly. Pull the workers quick enough. Have your obs in place. Etc. If you know an Oracle is coming and you build a Turret - that's it. You'll lose 1-2 workers at most and you don't need to spend any of your APM worrying about the Oracle. That's what I'm talking about.
Yeah so for your oracle example you assume the guy has defense, but when you talk about the mine you assume the toss has no overcharge, observers or stalkers? Fair comparison!
With proper pylon placement, unless i actually don't look at my mini map ever they either can't drop or have to lose the mines to pylons before they burrow.
Now i'm not arguing that mine drops is harder to execute or that harass isn't too strong in lotv, it's just that the reasons you stopped playing won't ever be solved in a game like sc2, unless we go back to amove deathball days.
As for playing offrace try to actually reach your toss MMR with terran in more than 25 games, you'll probably change your views on how easy it is to play
|
widowmine drops are not new and were not that big of an issue. the introduction of liberators changed how you approach the overall matchup. which means your openings are weaker to widowmine drops and your counters are less punishing when it doesn't work (i.e. economy changes)
You need splash to deal with bio and your protoss options for splash send you down tech paths that cannot not deal with liberators effectively. Blink can get you by but it has a shelf life. You ultimately need sky units which are a huge investment. The window to get enough sky to deal with a handful of liberators is so big that most aggressive terrans easily exploit it. Terrans however already have the infrastructure to get liberators w/o any additional research or tech tree.
so you open sky and hope they don't open widowmine drops.. and if they do you hope your control is good enough to come out even. if you slip up once you instantly lose... i'm with dino here.. you're boxed into strategies which kills creativity and eliminates fun
|
I agree with that Dino. The question is what is the source of unfun unit interactions. The direct source and the sources of sources. Blizzard seems to not understand this concept at all yet so let me go into detail.
The direct source of this unfun element you described is that protoss got the adapt, which now allows protoss to pay without relying on heavy splash only. Terran therefore requires these unfun elements of mines and liberators to be strong to become competitive. But lets have look what took place before. Protoss gameplay solely relied on how much splash you could stack on your army and deathball with colossi and then HT. It wasn't good at all. Fights were about colossi vs. bio and vikings vs. colossi. Also what kind of game balance is that where people figure out that throwing workers against the enemy in a single fight is their best option always at a certain stage of the game and is inescapeable if not already ahead? That shows best what I mean with narrow options, almost no wiggle room and room to breath.
The source of the adept is terran bio and how much it is overpowered. The adept just moved the issues away from colossi gameplay and hence bio cannot be detected as a part of the problem as well. But the problem of bio remains and gets visible in low supply situations or whenever games get crazy after huge fights still.
Bio mobility:
- 20 supply of bio will always kill your 10 supply of units without any losses at all and with no escape for your units.
- Your 20 supply of units will never kill any supply of 10 supply bio as you cannot catch them. You probably even lose a few units to micro before bio either stims away or loads in and flies away.
Bio split up ability:
- A few supply of bio being dropped behind enforces you to put more effort of units to fend it off efficiently.
- Dropping a few supply behind a bio terran will always fall to fewer efforts of bio supply.
Hence we got pylon cannon, warp back, also queen buffs, talk about static defence buffs, warp prism pick up range, etc.
Bio Power:
- Bio unites the most possible dps per square of basic units.
Bio concept of free units:
- A red bio unit after a fight is a bio unit that took no damage at all. It pretty much works as muta and reaper regeneration and is very similar to the concept of free units like those of swarmhosts or broodlords. Just by average out of any fight many bio units remain in a damaged but not dead status. These immediately become units of full value and full power again due to heal. Heal during fights can be counted as hitpoint enlargement and is not really the issue imo.
Bio accessibility:
- Mostly tier one and gasless.
All these features require hard anti mechanics such as the colossus, the adept, the baneling, etc. With the implementation of these the heavy damage gameplay was born. These strong anti measures require a strong reaction of terran again for cases where bio just gets shut down and overrun otherwise with the new tools the other kids got. The vicious circle has been implemented in which we remain now. Resuls of this vicious circle are op unit and mechanic implementation which are frustrating not only for players against bio but everyone. While terrans don't see a problem with bio now they see it too. Implementations or thoughts about implementing mass armor ultralisks, mass range hydralisks, free units for cheap, more and more op spells, prism load in range, removal of upgrades or making them hell cheap all can be counted to that in addition to some of the op units mentioned above.
All this results into only few best compositions, skipping of midgames, not wasting time with tech switches but build the optimal composition from the start on such as terran is doing it and finally unrewarding gameplay as narrow as hell and without options.
Bio is so to speak the all in one composition that should only become available very late if at all. Technically blizzard could have taken away and still could take away from bio in order to then take away from bio counters and again then take away from counters to bio counters (such as mines or liberators), which would result in more breathing room, wiggling room and less narrow pathes for payers to go. That would result in rewarding gameplay as whole games would not stand or fall about if one type of counter was there in large enough amounts at the very right time or not. But they are captives in the state of mind that it is best to only scratch surfaces instead of going for the original issue. People can wonder for eternity why SC2 is no fun, this is the reason. They can wonder eternaly why mech isn't viable and why the overall game balance (includes e.g. the inner racial balance of units) is that fragile, the reason is the very same. Mech just cannot ever reach what bio provides the player with in any way. Therefore either you overpower it too (just as many of the named things) or it will just stay less desirable. There wont ever be the desired middle ground possible.
I don't play SC2 anymore too and don't want to contribute to current small scale balance adjustments as in my opinion those all happen within this vicious circle. Every fixed problem will create 1-2 new problems. It is without any sense and it wont ever reach a state where SC2 could be fun for me again. There is little hope that they end up having buffed everything other than bio at one point, which is the same as nerfing bio. But thats unlikely as stuff like muta regeneration, pylon cannon and many more things will remain implemented which I consider obsolete in a perfect world. So in order to reach that perfect world such things had to be removed and the game had to be balanced around metagames where these things (only named two out of many mechanics) do not exist. As they exist it will hardly be possible to reach any good state of SC2 when basing decisions on their existence.
Hence I say SC2 is doomed. They gonna try and do many changes which continue to scratch surfaces. They wanna leave good impressions with their customers and playerbase and continue to come up with stuff. The lifespan will be artificially enlarged more, the bubble that now bursted in korea will be replaced with a much smaller one. They gonna say in the end that they tried everything in order to make SC2 a fun game. It will fail. I have almost noone left in my wider circle of friends and online friends who gets any fun out of SC2 and is admiring to play it. Those few who still do run behind self put goals like reaching certain level and put belief into the esports bubble. But lets be honest guys, SC2 in its current state would not be an esports at all if blizzard didn't feed the bubble with money all over the place. Now I don't say give that all up, everyone does feed its bubble to a certain degree. It can and will work for plenty of more time if Blizzard is willing to hold it up. But I would rather see SC2 being kept alive like broodwar is, a desireable game to play and to master which by itself awakes interest of esport competitions and competitors. This cannot be achieved in any other way than making SC2 a fun game to play, with rewarding gameplay, with a more wide set of options for players, with less frustrating mechanics and interactions, which it now imo and in the opinion of many many other people defenitely is not. And that pretty much is not dependent on if liberators have 10 more damage or not, just like you expressed it in a perfect manner.
|
On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond
I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though?
|
I do not agree with a straight away nerf of the Liberator. The Problem imho is not the damage output of a single Liberator it is more an issue of how many Units a pack of Liberator kills in a fight.
I agree that the Liberator is maybe too strong against stalkers in a Gateway based Army. But everytime Liberators see a pack of hydras they evaporate.
My conclusion would be that if the damage of Liberators is reduced there shall be added something else that Improves the surviveability.
To kill a pack of stalkers or hydras, Liberators need much more time, leading to a huge increase in damage output of stalkers and Liberators that shall be compensated rather on a fight centric view than on straight damage figures. This will Slow Down the pace of the Fight for both Players making it ultimately more Micro Oriented and less sensitive for Minor balance issues, and thus more fun to play and to watch
|
On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful)
I think that's because bliz has made a conscious effort to make the game largely worker harass first, then main army fighting second.
I mean think about it, a lot of the key moments from WoL were brought about by worker harass or attacks that involved them. Casters and audiences got hyped across the board when experiencing that level of attack - because it was the easiest signal to read: If you just killed a dozen drones, you are now ahead.
It became one of the key things to guard & protect (since SC is largely a resource gathering & spending game, and only at the higher levels does unit comp really matter a lot more).
bliz recognized that was wildly detrimental to newer players playing, and so they said to themselves, let's implement a few things that are really good at STOPPING that harass. (Widow Mine to defend against oracles/muta, and the liberator to defend against muta).
The only issue is that the widow mine used offensively as a drop into a mineral line is absolutely devastating, and i believe an unexpected consequence, and liberators seemed to be TOO good against air.
So they nerfed the AA aspect of the liberator (while still allowing it to maintain its role as ground specialist (??), and therefore massacre workers.
I feel like at this point, they decided 'forget this' and just went full tilt into worker harass is the key component of the game, which is why they don't have issues with widow mine decimating worker counts, or liberators being able to stop entire bases from mining
|
On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though?
Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here.
|
On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here.
In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with.
Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here.
On January 25 2017 03:04 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful) I think that's because bliz has made a conscious effort to make the game largely worker harass first, then main army fighting second. I mean think about it, a lot of the key moments from WoL were brought about by worker harass or attacks that involved them. Casters and audiences got hyped across the board when experiencing that level of attack - because it was the easiest signal to read: If you just killed a dozen drones, you are now ahead. It became one of the key things to guard & protect (since SC is largely a resource gathering & spending game, and only at the higher levels does unit comp really matter a lot more). bliz recognized that was wildly detrimental to newer players playing, and so they said to themselves, let's implement a few things that are really good at STOPPING that harass. (Widow Mine to defend against oracles/muta, and the liberator to defend against muta). The only issue is that the widow mine used offensively as a drop into a mineral line is absolutely devastating, and i believe an unexpected consequence, and liberators seemed to be TOO good against air. So they nerfed the AA aspect of the liberator (while still allowing it to maintain its role as ground specialist (??), and therefore massacre workers. I feel like at this point, they decided 'forget this' and just went full tilt into worker harass is the key component of the game, which is why they don't have issues with widow mine decimating worker counts, or liberators being able to stop entire bases from mining
Hm yeah but the problem is that it just feels too punishing a lot of the time. That is the stuff that is actually not fun for players just below the highest leagues (and even there it might be unfun tbh)
Worker harass is fine, but why does it have to be that potent? Why not design it in a way where small advantages add up over time? It's about comeback potential basically, if you lose a big chunk of your workers because of a single drop then you are screwed. Every decision you made before is basically irrelevant and you don't have a lot of options anymore either. It would be way better if you could only get to that poitn if the enemy harasses you multiple times throughout the game with stuff you can defend reasonably well. A lot of intreractions to show who is the better player, not one. (ofc there will always be strats which are about this one abusive tactic, but i feel blizzard promotes it)
|
On January 25 2017 03:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with. Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here.
Yeah but you aren't good either otherwise you wouldn't be bronze, so you still have a hard time dealing with that mine drop cause youre as slow as your opponent
If in master vs master games are hard, why would they not be in bronze vs bronze?
sc2 was hard when i used to be bronze, silver, gold, platin, diamond and master, it's never been an easy game in 1v1 come on...
As for what is fun or not like i said, regardless of what blizzard does people will always complain. Can the game still get better though? For sure! Does it look like anyone has the answer? Not really
|
that's funny.. because it is way more fun for me to play with a lead or play against someone who isn't as good. I tend to play with my food so to speak.. I get a lead and just ride it out.. I've won a ton of games just by getting a lead and never attacking ever... just sit back and relax lol
|
On January 25 2017 03:13 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with. Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here. Yeah but you aren't good either otherwise you wouldn't be bronze, so you still have a hard time dealing with that mine drop cause youre as slow as your opponent If in master vs master games are hard, why would they not be in bronze vs bronze? sc2 was hard when i used to be bronze, silver, gold, platin, diamond and master, it's never been an easy game in 1v1 come on... As for what is fun or not like i said, regardless of what blizzard does people will always complain. Can the game still get better though? For sure! Does it look like anyone has the answer? Not really
Well yeah but that's the point. Both players are rather bad, there is no need to play "well" (and thus fast, lots of multitasking, lots of stress). When i was in bronze/silver you could simply macro a bit and pretty much every game got to huge armies a moving into each other because no player was actually good enough to abuse anything.
How many games did i simply build mass bcs/carrier in a low league game and attack at the 20-30 minute mark? The game isn't hard per se, it absolutely depends on yourself.
With that being said, i think if you get a bit better and realize that there are abusive things which can end the game rather fast, that's the point where real frustration arises for a lot of players because it oftentimes is way easier to execute that abusive strategy/tactic than it is to defend it. That's one thing blizzard should be aware of i think.
|
On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here.
Not exactly.
Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion.
My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really.
Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these.
I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else.
|
On January 25 2017 03:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:13 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 03:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with. Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here. Yeah but you aren't good either otherwise you wouldn't be bronze, so you still have a hard time dealing with that mine drop cause youre as slow as your opponent If in master vs master games are hard, why would they not be in bronze vs bronze? sc2 was hard when i used to be bronze, silver, gold, platin, diamond and master, it's never been an easy game in 1v1 come on... As for what is fun or not like i said, regardless of what blizzard does people will always complain. Can the game still get better though? For sure! Does it look like anyone has the answer? Not really Well yeah but that's the point. Both players are rather bad, there is no need to play "well" (and thus fast, lots of multitasking, lots of stress). When i was in bronze/silver you could simply macro a bit and pretty much every game got to huge armies a moving into each other because no player was actually good enough to abuse anything. How many games did i simply build mass bcs/carrier in a low league game and attack at the 20-30 minute mark? The game isn't hard per se, it absolutely depends on yourself. With that being said, i think if you get a bit better and realize that there are abusive things which can end the game rather fast, that's the point where real frustration arises for a lot of players because it oftentimes is way easier to execute that abusive strategy/tactic than it is to defend it. That's one thing blizzard should be aware of i think.
Bronze require less mechanics but you also posesss less mechanics, so at the end of the day it takes almost as much effort to play than at any other level as soon as you try to rank up. If people were satisfied by sc2 for fun they would play unranked.
And yeah some strategies are easier to execute than defend right now, but what about wol colossi era? Or swarm hosts? Was that better? Not from my point of view. At least now it requires skill.
People who think blizzard will do everything that is asked of them should switch game, but they either don't and complain all day, or end up coming back because it's the same problem in other multiplayer games.
For me it was csgo and sure it does a lot of stuff better than sc2, but also a ton of stuff worse.
|
On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else.
Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't.
This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority.
Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another.
Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions.
In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone.
|
"Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out"
that's a pretty generalized statement which I'm not sure is true.
|
On January 25 2017 03:48 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else. Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't. This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority. Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another. Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions. In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone.
You create a false dichotomy here though. The game could include both, armies which don't just a move into another AND less frustrating harassment options. It's not one or the other.
You can argue that the harassment options right now are perfect as it is, but i would like to hear actual arguments which support this. Why is it "fun" / ok to have things like widow mine drops/baneling drops which can easily end the game right there. The impact is too big. (what you could exactly change to make it less impactful is another question)
|
The unfun elements were not brought with the last expansion. Just the hope for any help got all lost by a wide range of players after the last expansion did not bring any change but instead even sharpened unfun unit interaction such as with the introduction of the liberator.
The big hope and great trust people put into blizzard that SC2 will finally become the game that they want it to be with LOTV is another bubble or part of the big bubble that bursted within the following year.
|
On January 25 2017 04:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:48 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else. Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't. This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority. Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another. Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions. In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone. You create a false dichotomy here though. The game could include both, armies which don't just a move into another AND less frustrating harassment options. It's not one or the other. You can argue that the harassment options right now are perfect as it is, but i would like to hear actual arguments which support this. Why is it "fun" / ok to have things like widow mine drops/baneling drops which can easily end the game right there. The impact is too big. (what you could exactly change to make it less impactful is another question)
when did i say we couldn't get both at the same time? I even mentionned that i agreed harassment was too strong right now...
|
On January 25 2017 04:02 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 04:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:48 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else. Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't. This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority. Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another. Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions. In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone. You create a false dichotomy here though. The game could include both, armies which don't just a move into another AND less frustrating harassment options. It's not one or the other. You can argue that the harassment options right now are perfect as it is, but i would like to hear actual arguments which support this. Why is it "fun" / ok to have things like widow mine drops/baneling drops which can easily end the game right there. The impact is too big. (what you could exactly change to make it less impactful is another question) when did i say we couldn't get both at the same time? I even mentionned that i agreed harassment was too strong right now...
Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions
This imo reads like harassment as it is now is the only way to make deathballs go away. If that wasn't your intent then i apologize
So if you agree with that then we have a common ground to discuss i guess. As i keep mentioning, just because the end product is the best alternative right now doesn't mean that there isn't much to improve upon.
I think trying to understand WHY some things feel punishing/unfun and how to potentially change that is more interesting than pretending everything is fine just because nobody else does it better atm. (shoutout to JimmyJRaynor at this point!)
People don't like to talk about the actual game though it seems like (or rather nobody likes to talk about cause and effect)
Which is a shame because the more people actually tried to do this, the more insightful it would be probably.
|
If harrassment was the only problem SC2 had, we would look into a bright future. The problem of SC2 is deeper.
In fact the issue is that whenever an SC2 game gets into a rather little unequal state between two players, the effect this has is too huge and scales too much - no matter if this is being induced through harassment or anything else.
Hence: Harassment would be in a pretty fine state if in general little advantages would not scale as much as they do and could e.g. be made up for with creative and unorthodox ways to play. And you can nerf harassment as much as you want as if you do not remove it altogether even nerfed forms of harassment damage would scale higher than they should. Nothing would be fixed.
It really hurts watching the discussion being that much off point. Exactly that kind of feedback that harassment is too strong leads nowhere without understanding the whole thing.
But anyways guys I am gonna leave it to you again. You gonna figure it out some day.
|
On January 25 2017 04:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 04:02 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 04:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:48 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units.
This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else. Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't. This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority. Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another. Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions. In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone. You create a false dichotomy here though. The game could include both, armies which don't just a move into another AND less frustrating harassment options. It's not one or the other. You can argue that the harassment options right now are perfect as it is, but i would like to hear actual arguments which support this. Why is it "fun" / ok to have things like widow mine drops/baneling drops which can easily end the game right there. The impact is too big. (what you could exactly change to make it less impactful is another question) when did i say we couldn't get both at the same time? I even mentionned that i agreed harassment was too strong right now... Show nested quote +Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions This imo reads like harassment as it is now is the only way to make deathballs go away. If that wasn't your intent then i apologize So if you agree with that then we have a common ground to discuss i guess. As i keep mentioning, just because the end product is the best alternative right now doesn't mean that there isn't much to improve upon. I think trying to understand WHY some things feel punishing/unfun and how to potentially change that is more interesting than pretending everything is fine just because nobody else does it better atm. (shoutout to JimmyJRaynor at this point!) People don't like to talk about the actual game though it seems like (or rather nobody likes to talk about cause and effect) Which is a shame because the more people actually tried to do this, the more insightful it would be probably.
Yeah i was just saying this is an issue players have with lotv, and this is what people hated about hots/wol.
Problem is i can't speak for myself as i have the most fun in this version of sc2, and playing random makes it harder to get bored.
Thing is people who liked deathballs obviously don't appreciate the games direction, and i don't want them to have their fun back :p
Now for the main reasons as to why people would find the game unfun? Honestly i don't know of any that could be solved while making everyone happy. I just think no matter what we do theres always gonna be this guy who wants to mech it happen and curses blizz every day
Can you even balance at a pro level while maintaining a fun 1v1 environment? Seems like coop was made for casuals, and overwatch for haters.
|
On January 25 2017 04:15 LSN wrote:
If harrassment was the only problem SC2 had, we would look into a bright future. The problem of SC2 is deeper.
In fact the issue is that whenever an SC2 game gets into a rather little unequal state between two players, the effect this has is too huge and scales too much - no matter if this is being induced through harassment or anything else.
Hence: Harassment would be in a pretty fine state if in general little advantages would not scale as much as they do and could e.g. be made up for with creative and unorthodox ways to play. And you can nerf harassment as much as you want as if you do not remove it altogether even nerfed forms of harassment damage would scale higher than they should. Nothing would be fixed.
It really hurts watching the discussion being that much off point. Exactly that kind of feedback that harassment is too strong leads nowhere without understanding the whole thing.
But anyways guys I am gonna leave it to you again. You gonna figure it out some day.
Well nobody said "harassment" is as deep as it gets. A lot of it is due to the general pacing of the game (how fast you can get to certain supply counts, basically skipping states the game could need, economy working in a way efficiency is probably more important than it should be, etc)
That doesn't mean you cannot talk about an "easier" to spot thing though. Anybody can see that killing workers is probably too impactful right now, why not talk about something like that first?
And no, you aren't the one who has all the solutions. I am not either. Lalush wasn't either. The teamliqud team who proposed another economy system wasn't either. But that's exactly why discussing these things is so important.
On January 25 2017 04:19 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 04:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 04:02 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 04:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:48 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 03:30 egrimm wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way.
I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against.
You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play.
Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game.
If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now.
The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. Not exactly. Me and my group were playing a lot of WoL and HotS. It was a lot of fun especially offline in someone's house. However since LotV release our motivation to meet and play has gradually vanished. Not because game became "too hard". Because of a lot of unfun elements brought with the expansion. My terran friends hate using liberators but in PvT it is crucial unit and it is almost impossible to play without. So they use it but doesn't feel fun really. Same can be said about other changes: Adepts shades, turtle mass air, invincible nyduses and ultralisks, everchanging cyclons and SH because there is no clear intention in mind regarding their role, 8 range queens yada yada yada we all know these. I know, it is just my opinion but I feel like many people became disappointed with the game after all this changes, myself included. Some bitches and moans about that some are waiting for better tommorow and some just gave up and moved somewhere else. Yeah but on the other hands theres people like me who actually loved most of the changes brought in lotv. And maybe they'll change the game again to a point where i dislike it again, while other people won't. This kind of argument is irrelevant as long as it's not from the majority. Case in point : most players including pros agreed that lotv was the best expansions when it came out, so while it is far from perfect, there will always be people that prefer one version of the game than another. Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions. In the end some players came back, some left, game viewership has been going down before lotv anyway, you just can't please everyone. You create a false dichotomy here though. The game could include both, armies which don't just a move into another AND less frustrating harassment options. It's not one or the other. You can argue that the harassment options right now are perfect as it is, but i would like to hear actual arguments which support this. Why is it "fun" / ok to have things like widow mine drops/baneling drops which can easily end the game right there. The impact is too big. (what you could exactly change to make it less impactful is another question) when did i say we couldn't get both at the same time? I even mentionned that i agreed harassment was too strong right now... Game isn't fun because of harassment options? Well game was terrible because of amove deathball and boring early game in previous expansions This imo reads like harassment as it is now is the only way to make deathballs go away. If that wasn't your intent then i apologize So if you agree with that then we have a common ground to discuss i guess. As i keep mentioning, just because the end product is the best alternative right now doesn't mean that there isn't much to improve upon. I think trying to understand WHY some things feel punishing/unfun and how to potentially change that is more interesting than pretending everything is fine just because nobody else does it better atm. (shoutout to JimmyJRaynor at this point!) People don't like to talk about the actual game though it seems like (or rather nobody likes to talk about cause and effect) Which is a shame because the more people actually tried to do this, the more insightful it would be probably. Yeah i was just saying this is an issue players have with lotv, and this is what people hated about hots/wol. Problem is i can't speak for myself as i have the most fun in this version of sc2, and playing random makes it harder to get bored. Thing is people who liked deathballs obviously don't appreciate the games direction, and i don't want them to have their fun back :p Now for the main reasons as to why people would find the game unfun? Honestly i don't know of any that could be solved while making everyone happy. I just think no matter what we do theres always gonna be this guy who wants to mech it happen and curses blizz every day Can you even balance at a pro level while maintaining a fun 1v1 environment? Seems like coop was made for casuals, and overwatch for haters.
Well i am sure there are people who like deathballs (we need to define that though, big armies clashing doesn't mean it's two deathballs imo, i think "deathball" implies that one army wins almost all the time without losing much, or an army which doesn't allow for interesting unit interactions because it's too oppressive)
At the end of the day we should have a solid design philosophy and try to work towards that though. I think some reasonable things are: Comeback potential, strategical/tactical diversity, promoting multitasking, defenders advantage, "fun" unit interactions on every supply level, etc
Whatever the solutions are to get there, some will interfere with one or more of the goals we have. At that point it's down to priority and subjectivity. We still should try to argue the pros and cons case by case though, try to understand cause and effect and therefore increase our understanding of "game design" even if it is only on an amateur lvl here on TL. It's simply interesting. A lot of great games (counterstrike for example :D) came to be because of community involvement (i am sure dota as well). Why i say this? Well this "hey blizzard/David Kim are the professionals here and you are simply a random poster" is no good argument. (not saying you do this btw).
I keep repeating myself week for week though, at the end of the day people rather rant about balance numbers or tell me to play another game (which completely misses the point) or tell me how great ATVI is at earning money (another shoutout to JimmyJRaynor! :>)
|
Ye you name it, I can't disagree with any of that. But putting your right math about harassment on the underlying math which is already wrong wont do any good in grand scheme of things but just bury the source issues deeper and deeper, believe me.
Nevertheless this is what I analysed to have happened in the past and to continue to happen in the future anyway and I for sure do not want to be the one to hold you back with that. ^^
|
On January 25 2017 04:36 LSN wrote:
Ye you name it, I can't disagree with any of that. But putting your right math about harassment on the underlying math which is already wrong wont do any good in grand scheme of things but just bury the source issues deeper and deeper, believe me.
Nevertheless this is what I analysed to have happened in the past and to continue to happen in the future anyway and I for sure do not want to be the one to hold you back with that. ^^
I simply want more community involvement in discussing potential design issues. Nobody has all the answers, (rts) games are incredibly complex and changing one thing here oftentimes can lead to results you simply couldn't see coming (on your own).
I feel there needs to be a strong foundation of design goals and based on that we can argue what's the best way to get exactly there.
|
I don't believe in the democratic process here. It wont legitimate one all good solution at the end of the day but just clutters up stuff and makes smallest common denominator solutions likely to happen, as anything else cannot get the confirmation of the majority.
Still discussing is good.
|
Oh i am not saying the majority opinion is right,it boils down to discussion and looking at a variety of different arguments/solutions.
|
On January 25 2017 03:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with. Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here. Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:04 reneg wrote:On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful) I think that's because bliz has made a conscious effort to make the game largely worker harass first, then main army fighting second. I mean think about it, a lot of the key moments from WoL were brought about by worker harass or attacks that involved them. Casters and audiences got hyped across the board when experiencing that level of attack - because it was the easiest signal to read: If you just killed a dozen drones, you are now ahead. It became one of the key things to guard & protect (since SC is largely a resource gathering & spending game, and only at the higher levels does unit comp really matter a lot more). bliz recognized that was wildly detrimental to newer players playing, and so they said to themselves, let's implement a few things that are really good at STOPPING that harass. (Widow Mine to defend against oracles/muta, and the liberator to defend against muta). The only issue is that the widow mine used offensively as a drop into a mineral line is absolutely devastating, and i believe an unexpected consequence, and liberators seemed to be TOO good against air. So they nerfed the AA aspect of the liberator (while still allowing it to maintain its role as ground specialist (??), and therefore massacre workers. I feel like at this point, they decided 'forget this' and just went full tilt into worker harass is the key component of the game, which is why they don't have issues with widow mine decimating worker counts, or liberators being able to stop entire bases from mining Hm yeah but the problem is that it just feels too punishing a lot of the time. That is the stuff that is actually not fun for players just below the highest leagues (and even there it might be unfun tbh) Worker harass is fine, but why does it have to be that potent? Why not design it in a way where small advantages add up over time? It's about comeback potential basically, if you lose a big chunk of your workers because of a single drop then you are screwed. Every decision you made before is basically irrelevant and you don't have a lot of options anymore either. It would be way better if you could only get to that poitn if the enemy harasses you multiple times throughout the game with stuff you can defend reasonably well. A lot of intreractions to show who is the better player, not one. (ofc there will always be strats which are about this one abusive tactic, but i feel blizzard promotes it)
Or perhaps we've been reading it the wrong way. Maybe that's why these harassment options are so absolutely devastating: To allow someone who is significantly behind in worker count / army size / whatever to be able to slip in, and destroy a half dozen workers at a time?
And I'm agreeing that there definitely are issues with the lack of any comeback mechanics, and I personally feel like part of that issue is that the damage rates on everything are so incredibly high.
You spend the first few minutes of each game building an army, positioning it vs. your opponent, and in most of your matches, the first fight is really all you get. One side mops the floor with the other, and from then on is in a very comfortable position.
There will be little things that will drag it out: if the winner doesn't push his advantage, if the loser turtles up with defensive units in place, etc., but each of the fights are over with such lightning speed, that if you happen to be looking away and not notice the fight happening off screen, you're already done for.
|
hope to see less liberators and more tanks!
|
Give me a PM when avilo posts. I'm curious to see what he thinks about the new Liberators
|
trololo. foreginer nerchio rapes koreans terrans, stil cries for terran nerf.
man..
|
On January 25 2017 05:01 LSN wrote:
I don't believe in the democratic process here. It wont legitimate one all good solution at the end of the day but just clutters up stuff and makes smallest common denominator solutions likely to happen, as anything else cannot get the confirmation of the majority.
Still discussing is good.
On January 25 2017 05:09 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Oh i am not saying the majority opinion is right,it boils down to discussion and looking at a variety of different arguments/solutions.
There's three overall parts to this process
- identifying problems
- finding solutions
- implementing/testing solutions
I think the community overall—and in this sense a democratic process—decides on the first point. After all this game is supposed to be fun for the majority of players.
It's common sense though that finding the best solution cannot be handled the same way. Especially if a given solution implies a (necesary) nerf to a race. There are overarching goals like balance and improving gameplay which have to be addressed without bias. So, this is where game designers/Dev team should come in.
On January 25 2017 05:43 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 03:04 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 25 2017 02:53 ArtyK wrote:On January 25 2017 02:44 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2017 02:37 Charoisaur wrote:On January 25 2017 01:07 DinoMight wrote:
Yo,
Blizzard needs to make this game fun or else nobody will play, and nobody will watch. You can't only balance around the top top tier of players and leave all the diamond Protosses out to dry. They are the target market! They are the people that are watching your eSports events and building community around the game.
If the game becomes unfun, people will stop playing, and they'll stop watching.
I've essentially moved on to CSGO as my main game now, because StarCraft hasn't been fun at all for me since LotV.
The biggest issue with Widow Mines and Liberators isn't the damage or the tech or build orders etc.... It's that it takes significantly more APM to play against them than with them. It's just not fun to have to work your ass off to fight these things only to get ROFLSTOMPED by a bunch of stim bio minutes later because you were busy microing fucking probes while the Terran sits in his base and presses 4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I want the game to be about playing the game, not about babysitting your fucking probes all game. you can say exactly the same from a zerg/terran perspective and just replace liberators/widowmines with other units. This whole "waahaa only my race requires skill, the other races are all super easy" argument is just stupid and everyone who thinks that should play offrace until they've realized how wrong they were. Guys, I'm not just blanket whining. I've played enough SC2 at a high level for a very long time to understand that all races are hard in their own way. I'm only talking about the Widow mine right now and how it requires significantly more clicks to deal with than to use. I think this makes it very NOT fun to play against. You're honestly going to tell me that some random tournament in CSGO has 100x more viewers than the GSL because of skin betting? That's pretty naive. It has more viewers because it's more accessible and more fun to play. Wings of Liberty was fun. Hots was less fun. Legacy of the Void is not a fun game. If you don't believe me, (I assume I'm talking to mostly Terran and Zerg players) hit up the ladder and just TRY playing PvT right now. The first year of csgo there was literally no viewers for any tournaments, the game was more dead than sc2 ever was. But in 4 months with the addition of skins and the first major the daily player base got multiplied by 3, and it slowly got higher and higher to where we are now. Yes the game is easier to play, and people all left 1.6/source, esport got more popular and we had to choose the new number 1 fps, and csgo was the obvious choice. Is starcraft 2 an fps? No. Can you make it easy to play/accessible? Well unless you want to go back to your deathball colossi army i'm sorry but even that won't give it 500 000 viewers. Comparing it to the hottest esport title makes absolutely no sense given starcraft 2 history and gameplay. And please don't tell me you've played this game at high level, that's completly false, you're diamond I think people really overstate how "hard" sc2 is to play. Why? Because the lvl of your opponent matters how hard you really have to try. The real question is why low lvl players aren't motivated to continue playing. It is NOT "hard" to play in bronze league. Is it "fun" though? Hard is still the reason why people don't have fun though. Otherwise they wouldn't be bitching about balance on forums instead of playing. And as far as design goes, whatever blizzard does, some people will hate it and some will like it, theres no magic answer here. In what way is it "hard" ? If you play in bronze/silver league it's not hard at all. The enemy isn't good. The chance of dying to a widow mine drop there is close to zero because the opponent probably forgets his medivac over your mineral line for 5 minutes to begin with. Why exactly it's not fun? That's the actual problem here. On January 25 2017 03:04 reneg wrote:On January 25 2017 02:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Not entirely sure if i agree with him though. In general worker harass seems too strong atm (or rather too impactful) I think that's because bliz has made a conscious effort to make the game largely worker harass first, then main army fighting second. I mean think about it, a lot of the key moments from WoL were brought about by worker harass or attacks that involved them. Casters and audiences got hyped across the board when experiencing that level of attack - because it was the easiest signal to read: If you just killed a dozen drones, you are now ahead. It became one of the key things to guard & protect (since SC is largely a resource gathering & spending game, and only at the higher levels does unit comp really matter a lot more). bliz recognized that was wildly detrimental to newer players playing, and so they said to themselves, let's implement a few things that are really good at STOPPING that harass. (Widow Mine to defend against oracles/muta, and the liberator to defend against muta). The only issue is that the widow mine used offensively as a drop into a mineral line is absolutely devastating, and i believe an unexpected consequence, and liberators seemed to be TOO good against air. So they nerfed the AA aspect of the liberator (while still allowing it to maintain its role as ground specialist (??), and therefore massacre workers. I feel like at this point, they decided 'forget this' and just went full tilt into worker harass is the key component of the game, which is why they don't have issues with widow mine decimating worker counts, or liberators being able to stop entire bases from mining Hm yeah but the problem is that it just feels too punishing a lot of the time. That is the stuff that is actually not fun for players just below the highest leagues (and even there it might be unfun tbh) Worker harass is fine, but why does it have to be that potent? Why not design it in a way where small advantages add up over time? It's about comeback potential basically, if you lose a big chunk of your workers because of a single drop then you are screwed. Every decision you made before is basically irrelevant and you don't have a lot of options anymore either. It would be way better if you could only get to that poitn if the enemy harasses you multiple times throughout the game with stuff you can defend reasonably well. A lot of intreractions to show who is the better player, not one. (ofc there will always be strats which are about this one abusive tactic, but i feel blizzard promotes it) Or perhaps we've been reading it the wrong way. Maybe that's why these harassment options are so absolutely devastating: To allow someone who is significantly behind in worker count / army size / whatever to be able to slip in, and destroy a half dozen workers at a time?
Does it matter though? If you're behind in army significantly, it doesn't matter how many workers you kill. Your opponent will close out the game or kill your economy with his army advantage. So, if it is supposed to be a comeback mechanism, it's very soft and indirect. Any real comeback mechanism will directly help you catch up by delaying the game.
I agree with you that there is a significant lack of comeback mechanisms in SC2. Especially because terrain really doesn't play a big role. Imo army movement, positioning and gaining parts of the map (and everything leading up to that like army production and army composition) is what makes any RTS strategic. This aspect seems to be lost on SC2.
|
There are overarching goals like balance and improving gameplay which have to be addressed without bias. So, this is where game designers/Dev team should come in.
Yes but thats just one thing for them, the other one is to analyse WHAT IS FUN, WHAT IS NOT FUN, WHY IS THIS NOT FUN.
I think the community overall—and in this sense a democratic process—decides on the first point. After all this game is supposed to be fun for the majority of players.
And as i pointed towards above, this is what the designers decide best, not the community.
The community can give hints what is fun, give hints what doesnt work but the designers is the core workers here, its their job and THEY SHOULD BE the best at it cuz they have more knowledge about game design in general and also THEY WORK at the game meaning they can spend an enourmous time on it compared to someone like me from the community.
They also know WHAT THEIR PLAN IS, what their philosophy is which someone like me dont know since blizzard in this case do a very bad communication.
Worth pointing out is that a company like this, they CAN IF THEY DECIDE share their philosophy and plan, but it feels like they dont have one in this case cuz i have never heard of one through the years of the sc2. Thats on them, not us.
Also the fun part, its not all about subjective opinions here and there, its also how the human works, how our brain functions.
If someone says this "starring into a wall for several hours is really fun", i wouldnt say that thats a "good" opinion, and i wouldnt considder this type of gameplay in a game, right? A minority at best would, right?
The brain like challenges. So to create challenges in a game should be a point, a good challenge can implie a good relationship between units in the game and with a good unit relationship the onesided micro and onesided a-move win battles dissapear.
My point is, the brain is universal, not individual, i understand that some found things different fun and challenging but overall its a universal brain with some hit or miss but its not big as people try to say it is.
|
On January 25 2017 22:34 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +There are overarching goals like balance and improving gameplay which have to be addressed without bias. So, this is where game designers/Dev team should come in. Yes but thats just one thing for them, the other one is to analyse WHAT IS FUN, WHAT IS NOT FUN, WHY IS THIS NOT FUN.
theyve showed time and time again they dont care about players having fun theyre more focussed on whats 'cool to watch.'
Even if they would consider fun they almost always only consider it from one side - they spend very little time worrying about fun counterplay.
For example : Reapers with grenades! That sounds like a lot of fun! Woah this is cool I can make stuff jump everywhere
Counterplay : Slams head against wall.
Another example : Wow I can use circles to zone out my opponents and harass mineral lines!
Counterplay : my stalkers or queens can barely reach there wtf I better uninstall the game.
List goes on and on
|
On January 25 2017 02:56 LSN wrote:
I agree with that Dino. The question is what is the source of unfun unit interactions. The direct source and the sources of sources. Blizzard seems to not understand this concept at all yet so let me go into detail.
The direct source of this unfun element you described is that protoss got the adapt, which now allows protoss to pay without relying on heavy splash only. Terran therefore requires these unfun elements of mines and liberators to be strong to become competitive. But lets have look what took place before. Protoss gameplay solely relied on how much splash you could stack on your army and deathball with colossi and then HT. It wasn't good at all. Fights were about colossi vs. bio and vikings vs. colossi. Also what kind of game balance is that where people figure out that throwing workers against the enemy in a single fight is their best option always at a certain stage of the game and is inescapeable if not already ahead? That shows best what I mean with narrow options, almost no wiggle room and room to breath.
The source of the adept is terran bio and how much it is overpowered. The adept just moved the issues away from colossi gameplay and hence bio cannot be detected as a part of the problem as well. But the problem of bio remains and gets visible in low supply situations or whenever games get crazy after huge fights still.
Bio mobility:
- 20 supply of bio will always kill your 10 supply of units without any losses at all and with no escape for your units.
- Your 20 supply of units will never kill any supply of 10 supply bio as you cannot catch them. You probably even lose a few units to micro before bio either stims away or loads in and flies away.
Bio split up ability:
- A few supply of bio being dropped behind enforces you to put more effort of units to fend it off efficiently.
- Dropping a few supply behind a bio terran will always fall to fewer efforts of bio supply.
Hence we got pylon cannon, warp back, also queen buffs, talk about static defence buffs, warp prism pick up range, etc.
Bio Power:
- Bio unites the most possible dps per square of basic units.
Bio concept of free units:
- A red bio unit after a fight is a bio unit that took no damage at all. It pretty much works as muta and reaper regeneration and is very similar to the concept of free units like those of swarmhosts or broodlords. Just by average out of any fight many bio units remain in a damaged but not dead status. These immediately become units of full value and full power again due to heal. Heal during fights can be counted as hitpoint enlargement and is not really the issue imo.
Bio accessibility:
- Mostly tier one and gasless.
All these features require hard anti mechanics such as the colossus, the adept, the baneling, etc. With the implementation of these the heavy damage gameplay was born. These strong anti measures require a strong reaction of terran again for cases where bio just gets shut down and overrun otherwise with the new tools the other kids got. The vicious circle has been implemented in which we remain now. Resuls of this vicious circle are op unit and mechanic implementation which are frustrating not only for players against bio but everyone. While terrans don't see a problem with bio now they see it too. Implementations or thoughts about implementing mass armor ultralisks, mass range hydralisks, free units for cheap, more and more op spells, prism load in range, removal of upgrades or making them hell cheap all can be counted to that in addition to some of the op units mentioned above.
All this results into only few best compositions, skipping of midgames, not wasting time with tech switches but build the optimal composition from the start on such as terran is doing it and finally unrewarding gameplay as narrow as hell and without options.
Bio is so to speak the all in one composition that should only become available very late if at all. Technically blizzard could have taken away and still could take away from bio in order to then take away from bio counters and again then take away from counters to bio counters (such as mines or liberators), which would result in more breathing room, wiggling room and less narrow pathes for payers to go. That would result in rewarding gameplay as whole games would not stand or fall about if one type of counter was there in large enough amounts at the very right time or not. But they are captives in the state of mind that it is best to only scratch surfaces instead of going for the original issue. People can wonder for eternity why SC2 is no fun, this is the reason. They can wonder eternaly why mech isn't viable and why the overall game balance (includes e.g. the inner racial balance of units) is that fragile, the reason is the very same. Mech just cannot ever reach what bio provides the player with in any way. Therefore either you overpower it too (just as many of the named things) or it will just stay less desirable. There wont ever be the desired middle ground possible.
I don't play SC2 anymore too and don't want to contribute to current small scale balance adjustments as in my opinion those all happen within this vicious circle. Every fixed problem will create 1-2 new problems. It is without any sense and it wont ever reach a state where SC2 could be fun for me again. There is little hope that they end up having buffed everything other than bio at one point, which is the same as nerfing bio. But thats unlikely as stuff like muta regeneration, pylon cannon and many more things will remain implemented which I consider obsolete in a perfect world. So in order to reach that perfect world such things had to be removed and the game had to be balanced around metagames where these things (only named two out of many mechanics) do not exist. As they exist it will hardly be possible to reach any good state of SC2 when basing decisions on their existence.
Hence I say SC2 is doomed. They gonna try and do many changes which continue to scratch surfaces. They wanna leave good impressions with their customers and playerbase and continue to come up with stuff. The lifespan will be artificially enlarged more, the bubble that now bursted in korea will be replaced with a much smaller one. They gonna say in the end that they tried everything in order to make SC2 a fun game. It will fail. I have almost noone left in my wider circle of friends and online friends who gets any fun out of SC2 and is admiring to play it. Those few who still do run behind self put goals like reaching certain level and put belief into the esports bubble. But lets be honest guys, SC2 in its current state would not be an esports at all if blizzard didn't feed the bubble with money all over the place. Now I don't say give that all up, everyone does feed its bubble to a certain degree. It can and will work for plenty of more time if Blizzard is willing to hold it up. But I would rather see SC2 being kept alive like broodwar is, a desireable game to play and to master which by itself awakes interest of esport competitions and competitors. This cannot be achieved in any other way than making SC2 a fun game to play, with rewarding gameplay, with a more wide set of options for players, with less frustrating mechanics and interactions, which it now imo and in the opinion of many many other people defenitely is not. And that pretty much is not dependent on if liberators have 10 more damage or not, just like you expressed it in a perfect manner.
I have to agree with this. The power creep is so clearly originating in bio that I'm confused why this hasn't been figured out and agreed upon by the community before. Even just comparing the changes from brood war makes this obvious as all hell:
Protoss:
Zealots are now crappier, enjoy. Dragoons are now called stalkers and they're shit, enjoy!
Zerg:
Zerglings are now crappier, enjoy. Hydras are now T2 overpriced glass cannons that only work against protoss and you have no AA until lair. Have fun!
Terran:
Medic and dropship combined in the most comically over-powered way possible
Marauder added to bio army for base-sniping
Marines ignore attack animation and fire instantly, allowing easy stutter stepping
Mules make workers unimportant, you always have enough minerals to make the only unit you'll ever need: marines
Seriously how is this still like this? After how many years? I came into this game at LOTV release but as a long fan of brood war I just can't fathom why there is even a debate about where the 'power creep' in this game is coming from. You're worried about harass being too powerful or armies disappearing in the blink of an eye? Then start by examining bio because it embodies pretty much every issue the community complains about.
|
Terran bio requires splash to fight it head on AND also is the most mobile army in the game because of Medivacs.
So unless you make splash totally OP (Colos, Storm, Disruptors, Banelings, Ultras) AND mobile, Terran bio always has the upper hand.
This has been the case since WoL. Nerfing *RELIABLE* splash damage for Protoss (Colossus) and adding a new unit that counters it (Liberator) meanwhile shifting the economy to one that favors cheaper units (bio) OBVIOUSLY results in Terran favor vs. P.
I don't know why this is a debate even.
|
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
|
People still think stalkers are worse than dragoons? Really? At least stalkers can walk up ramps.
Getting air attack upgrades will be more important now but at least liberators aren't as broken as before! From this, could it be that David Kim is no longer head balancer, or on holiday?
|
On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Might I add, the macro mechanics (including injects) are a lot of the problems in the economy. Look at some graphics of the scaling between races and it's quite apparent as to why.
If you played during LotV beta without them, it's even more apparent. Because you don't only see it in graphs, you "felt" the difference. 12 worker start with 0 macro mechanics still did not feel as fast as HotS did. Yet 12 worker start + full macro mechanics, ramps the scaling up to a ridiculous multiplier.
|
I really enjoy Legacy, much better than hots or wol
|
You are all beating a dead horse when it comes to bio.
Nerf bio and the amount of buffs across the other Terran units, and nerfs on the new uber powered Protoss and Zerg races would lead to months of instability and seriously impact the player base.
Not going to happen - the only feasible options that we have are targeted tweaks to keep win rates even, or continual cycles of small tweaks for the remaining life of SC2, not fundamental changes.
|
On January 27 2017 07:12 starkiller123 wrote:
I really enjoy Legacy, much better than hots or wol
Congratulations. You're a Terran player.
Everyone loves winning mate.
|
On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO.
Game was perfectly fine without it.
|
On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it.
No but the mother ship core have a lot to do with medivac boost and the mother ship core was introduced because of the lack of defenders advantage in pvp, (and to defend a third against zerg), due to warp gate
But I agree it is a stupid ability and should be removed.
|
No actually I enjoy playing
|
On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
I agree. I have often said that the 'terrible, terrible damage' is a terrible design choice. Hard counters are another.
I want fights to last longer so that I can make important tactical interventions during the battle. I want to have time to assess the situation and decide whether to fight or run, and if I run I want some of my units to survive. Medivacs at least help bio with that.
I am not saying that I want a lot of time though, this isn't the other SC2 (Supreme Commander 2), it is on a smaller, more intimate, tactical scale, but having the fight last a few extra seconds would greatly increase the fun for me.
|
On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it.
But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even.
And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried.
|
On January 27 2017 07:49 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it. But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even. And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried.
If I remember well drop play was dead at the end of WOL because medivacs were too slow. Players had gotten so good at deflecting them that they were obsolete.
|
Liberator Concord Cannon damage changed from 85 to 75
I don't think liberator is an OP unit generally speaking, you have to be repositioning them once and again and again, and that makes you loose very often. The only situation where I feel them OP is early-mid in the TvP where there can't be enough stalkers, so I like how this nerf would address that particular problem. Libs aren't a problem in TvZ, but now Ultras will be even more viable, so i don't like this side of the nerf.
Overall I think it should be somehow compensated, there goes a bunch of ideas:
A) Rise a 10% the Defender Mode firerate. It used to take almost 6.84 seconds to kill an ultra with one lib, with -10 damage debuff and +10% firerate buff it would be 7.18. It would also make not so big the difference vs Stalkers (changing from 2 shots to 3 is a HUGE change)
B) +1 radio and -1 to range in defender mode. So they would cover slightly a bigger area, but ranges wouldn't change
C) -10% time to deploy in defender mode and -10% to reverse to fighter mode, for faster repositioning
|
On January 25 2017 23:33 Comedy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 22:34 Foxxan wrote:There are overarching goals like balance and improving gameplay which have to be addressed without bias. So, this is where game designers/Dev team should come in. Yes but thats just one thing for them, the other one is to analyse WHAT IS FUN, WHAT IS NOT FUN, WHY IS THIS NOT FUN. theyve showed time and time again they dont care about players having fun theyre more focussed on whats 'cool to watch.' Even if they would consider fun they almost always only consider it from one side - they spend very little time worrying about fun counterplay. For example : Reapers with grenades! That sounds like a lot of fun! Woah this is cool I can make stuff jump everywhere Counterplay : Slams head against wall. Another example : Wow I can use circles to zone out my opponents and harass mineral lines! Counterplay : my stalkers or queens can barely reach there wtf I better uninstall the game. List goes on and on
Ye lots of stupid crap.
Cant understand why putting grenades on reapers is considdered fun at blizzard. I mean, alot of stuff in sc2 is total crap but grenades of all things should be "super easy to understand its not fun", yet they went through with it...
|
On January 27 2017 08:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 07:49 DeadByDawn wrote:On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it. But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even. And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried. If I remember well drop play was dead at the end of WOL because medivacs were too slow. Players had gotten so good at deflecting them that they were obsolete.
Indeed. There were many easy ways to counter the drop, and the loss of the units and medivac was game ending.
Then we got boost, which is a powerful but not OP mechanism (given the defensive abilities of the races). Boost in to get some quick damage, or boost out to save units, or even abort the drop and boost away if there is more defense than you bargained for.
|
On January 27 2017 08:30 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On January 27 2017 07:49 DeadByDawn wrote:On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it. But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even. And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried. If I remember well drop play was dead at the end of WOL because medivacs were too slow. Players had gotten so good at deflecting them that they were obsolete. Indeed. There were many easy ways to counter the drop, and the loss of the units and medivac was game ending. Then we got boost, which is a powerful but not OP mechanism (given the defensive abilities of the races). Boost in to get some quick damage, or boost out to save units, or even abort the drop and boost away if there is more defense than you bargained for.
Exactly, thats not fun when the other race cant do much about it except having a bunch of units ready at all time. Or just some very super defence such as mscore, warpgate or 30% extra movement speed on creep.
All of these things needs a fix imo but i would lie to myself if i truly think blizzard will do much good for this game.
|
On January 27 2017 08:35 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:30 DeadByDawn wrote:On January 27 2017 08:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On January 27 2017 07:49 DeadByDawn wrote:On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it. But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even. And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried. If I remember well drop play was dead at the end of WOL because medivacs were too slow. Players had gotten so good at deflecting them that they were obsolete. Indeed. There were many easy ways to counter the drop, and the loss of the units and medivac was game ending. Then we got boost, which is a powerful but not OP mechanism (given the defensive abilities of the races). Boost in to get some quick damage, or boost out to save units, or even abort the drop and boost away if there is more defense than you bargained for. Exactly, thats not fun when the other race cant do much about it except having a bunch of units ready at all time. Or just some very super defence such as mscore, warpgate or 30% extra movement speed on creep. All of these things needs a fix imo but i would lie to myself if i truly think blizzard will do much good for this game.
Agreed. There seems to have been this arms race in SC2 where things have got ever more powerful, for the WOW factor, and to counter ever more powerful options available to the other side.
I really wish that when Blizz see a problem they explore nerfs first and buffs as a last resort.
I would say that I still like the game, but there is so much more it could have been.
|
I'm hydra-polar...How many times is my heart going to rise and fall before I can finally put my hopes of playing again to rest?
The dream...the HP buff dream...I mean, since liberator damage is the main reason why hydras are unusable in ZvT this is a huge step in the right direction . I know my reasons are totally selfish and that the real reason Blizzard did this was for PvT, but I'd like to think that they too, would like to see hydras in ZvT .
|
Protoss:
Zealots are now crappier, enjoy. Dragoons are now called stalkers and they're shit, enjoy!
Zerg:
Zerglings are now crappier, enjoy. Hydras are now T2 overpriced glass cannons that only work against protoss and you have no AA until lair. Have fun!
Terran:
Medic and dropship combined in the most comically over-powered way possible
Marauder added to bio army for base-sniping
Marines ignore attack animation and fire instantly, allowing easy stutter stepping
Mules make workers unimportant, you always have enough minerals to make the only unit you'll ever need: marines
I totally agree to this.
I don't understand either. Playstyles from other races nearly always got nerfed when they got too good / hard to counter. Colossi / Blink Stalkers in HotS ... BL/ Infestor in WoL, Swarmhosts in HotS ... it always was nerfed down to nearly unplayable at least with the next expansion.
But terran bio seems to be inviolable balancewise. It was strong from the beginning (comparison to Brood War shows that point), and with every expansion it only always got stronger and stronger ... if not by itself, then by adding units which fit perfectly in bio play (wm, libs, tankivacs ... okay last point is the only thing which got reverted ... but in the end just a small point). It's just weird when blizzard always announced they want to make mech viable again but never get to the point this might not be possible without clearly nerfing the way-to-powerful bio style.
Terran is just bad designed (not only at the moment, but for years). Each race should have an advantage going for tier 3 Tech units. Zerg has and needs BL, Ultras or Vipers in a lot of late game szenarios. Protoss has and needs Colossi, HT, Carrier and even the hugely nerfed Tempest in a lot of late game szenarios.
Terran has ghosts, thors and BC (okay, maybe raven too, hard to say if it's more T2 or T3). But besides ghosts your nearly never need Thors or BCs. Not because they are too week ... they are just not needed, cause bio compositions, esp. with wm/lib and as i mentioned maybe ghosts can deal very decent with most of the other races late game compositions ...
THERE should the changes be setted.
But I am afraid blizzard don't want to really touch this matter. If they wanted, they should have done this with the beginning of LotV. Cause it is much too huge for a small game patch.
So small changes can be only done for all those complementary units i think. Lib debuff is a first step, but i doubt it will be enough (or is even the right change, cause libs may be awful, but the bigger problem are widow mines i think).
|
Yeah, its kinda sad to realize, that the whole essence of SC2 is BIO. The rest is just framing.
I can clearly see that picture when SC2 was in alpha stage of development and designers were obsessed with idea of making it different from bw and that way they came up with this... Well, i can't say they completely failed with that medivac+bio thing. You can't deny ZvT (bio vs bane muta) is both fun to play and watch and requires good mechanics and fundamentals (no room for poorly skilled players). But thats were it ends. As time showed, this whole mechanic could not be integrated into a classic RTS concept, it remains alien, requiring band-aid solutions like massive aoe in form of colosi etc (everything that LSN talks about in his posts). So yeah, without revamping the game from scratch we are destined to brag about nerfing/buffing units that support/counter bio. Because Blizzard never ever touched (and even dared to discuss) starcraft core concept - the marine. I mean, it is not the end of the world. Its still a great rts experience.
|
On January 27 2017 07:49 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 07:23 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
Medivac boost has nothing to do with the Warpgate mechanic, IMO. Game was perfectly fine without it. But it is very difficult to drop an attentive player without it, especially if they have good building or unit placement for vision. And hard to escape with any units, or the medivac even. And if I cannot do early damage when playing bio, or lose a drop, then I am pretty much dead and buried.
Yeah, you're right. When you go Bio you are basically locked into massive drop play. If you don't do damage early on and build your army and expand while doing it, you won't be able to win.
If you take a step back though, the other option always has been—as others have already said in this thread—to rework the Terran late game army. I imagine, they didn't do that because it's more complicated. Ultimately Terran simply doesn't have a strong, viable late game army and therefore Bio has to be strong.
The problem is that once players adapt to harassment and become better at defending drops these buffs fall flat. This is imo what showed at the end of HotS in PvT where Protoss would just defend until they had their way superior T3 army and just crushed Terran like nobody's business.
Another point I want to make is that Bio play doesn't work without Mule economy. I imagine this was the reason why they immediately reimplemented the macro mechanics in the LotV beta (after two glorious weeks :D). Terran was a shell of its former self without being able to pump reactored Marines. This also indicates that Bio has a severe design problem.
A third point is that Medivacs are to supply efficient because they mix two roles (Transport and Healer). Imagine if these roles were split as they were in BW (into Dropship and Medic). The equivalent of a 2 Medivac 16 Marine (4 + 16 = 20 supply) drop would be 2 Dropships, 2 medics and 12 Marines (4 + 4 + 12 = 20 supply). This equals an immediate 25% DPS drop because you have 1/4th less Marines. Not to mention that fights would require more skill because Medics are slower than stimmed Marines/Marauders and you would have to wait for them to catch up.
|
On January 27 2017 19:07 insitelol wrote:
Yeah, its kinda sad to realize, that the whole essence of SC2 is BIO. The rest is just framing.
I can clearly see that picture when SC2 was in alpha stage of development and designers were obsessed with idea of making it different from bw and that way they came up with this... Well, i can't say they completely failed with that medivac+bio thing. You can't deny ZvT (bio vs bane muta) is both fun to play and watch and requires good mechanics and fundamentals (no room for poorly skilled players). But thats were it ends. As time showed, this whole mechanic could not be integrated into a classic RTS concept, it remains alien, requiring band-aid solutions like massive aoe in form of colosi etc (everything that LSN talks about in his posts). So yeah, without revamping the game from scratch we are destined to brag about nerfing/buffing units that support/counter bio. Because Blizzard never ever touched (and even dared to discuss) starcraft core concept - the marine. I mean, it is not the end of the world. Its still a great rts experience.
I feel like I'm having a big dejavu in this thread. This issue has been discussed a lot back in WoL beta. Many of the design decisions were heavily criticized back then. Several people could see that things like medivac (dropship + medics) would be problematic. Marauders are also problematic because they essentially fulfill the tank's role while being very mobile and having stimpack, making Bio completely independent and complete. The lack of goliath (the viking is a poor man goliath design-wise) is also obviously a design problem that would make mech very vulnerable.
It was not hard to see back then that the design team first goal is to make sure that the game wasn't like BW. Then maybe the second goal was to make a well designed game. I just find it funny that back then anyone that pointed these same issues was instantly labeled as a "BW elitist" that just "wanted SC2 to be exactly like BW".
|
On January 27 2017 20:00 Turb0Sw4g wrote:
A third point is that Medivacs are to supply efficient because they mix two roles (Transport and Healer). Imagine if these roles were split as they were in BW (into Dropship and Medic). The equivalent of a 2 Medivac 16 Marine (4 + 16 = 20 supply) drop would be 2 Dropships, 2 medics and 12 Marines (4 + 4 + 12 = 20 supply). This equals an immediate 25% DPS drop because you have 1/4th less Marines. Not to mention that fights would require more skill because Medics are slower than stimmed Marines/Marauders and you would have to wait for them to catch up.
I was thinking about that issue as well but no matter how hard i tried to find a reasonable solution, i realised it could only be brought down to nerfing medivac healing/stim so that they would look like their BW counterparts. So, essentially, it will just lead to BW2. I mean, do we really need that?
|
On January 27 2017 20:58 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 19:07 insitelol wrote:
Yeah, its kinda sad to realize, that the whole essence of SC2 is BIO. The rest is just framing.
I can clearly see that picture when SC2 was in alpha stage of development and designers were obsessed with idea of making it different from bw and that way they came up with this... Well, i can't say they completely failed with that medivac+bio thing. You can't deny ZvT (bio vs bane muta) is both fun to play and watch and requires good mechanics and fundamentals (no room for poorly skilled players). But thats were it ends. As time showed, this whole mechanic could not be integrated into a classic RTS concept, it remains alien, requiring band-aid solutions like massive aoe in form of colosi etc (everything that LSN talks about in his posts). So yeah, without revamping the game from scratch we are destined to brag about nerfing/buffing units that support/counter bio. Because Blizzard never ever touched (and even dared to discuss) starcraft core concept - the marine. I mean, it is not the end of the world. Its still a great rts experience. I feel like I'm having a big dejavu in this thread. This issue has been discussed a lot back in WoL beta. Many of the design decisions were heavily criticized back then. Several people could see that things like medivac (dropship + medics) would be problematic. Marauders are also problematic because they essentially fulfill the tank's role while being very mobile and having stimpack, making Bio completely independent and complete. The lack of goliath (the viking is a poor man goliath design-wise) is also obviously a design problem that would make mech very vulnerable. It was not hard to see back then that the design team first goal is to make sure that the game wasn't like BW. Then maybe the second goal was to make a well designed game. I just find it funny that back then anyone that pointed these same issues was instantly labeled as a "BW elitist" that just "wanted SC2 to be exactly like BW".
Well if anything that is *not* like BW is *bad design* then probably you don't really need SC2, right? I mean BW is still alive and you can always play it, and it's a lot of fun
|
On January 27 2017 21:26 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 20:58 petro1987 wrote:On January 27 2017 19:07 insitelol wrote:
Yeah, its kinda sad to realize, that the whole essence of SC2 is BIO. The rest is just framing.
I can clearly see that picture when SC2 was in alpha stage of development and designers were obsessed with idea of making it different from bw and that way they came up with this... Well, i can't say they completely failed with that medivac+bio thing. You can't deny ZvT (bio vs bane muta) is both fun to play and watch and requires good mechanics and fundamentals (no room for poorly skilled players). But thats were it ends. As time showed, this whole mechanic could not be integrated into a classic RTS concept, it remains alien, requiring band-aid solutions like massive aoe in form of colosi etc (everything that LSN talks about in his posts). So yeah, without revamping the game from scratch we are destined to brag about nerfing/buffing units that support/counter bio. Because Blizzard never ever touched (and even dared to discuss) starcraft core concept - the marine. I mean, it is not the end of the world. Its still a great rts experience. I feel like I'm having a big dejavu in this thread. This issue has been discussed a lot back in WoL beta. Many of the design decisions were heavily criticized back then. Several people could see that things like medivac (dropship + medics) would be problematic. Marauders are also problematic because they essentially fulfill the tank's role while being very mobile and having stimpack, making Bio completely independent and complete. The lack of goliath (the viking is a poor man goliath design-wise) is also obviously a design problem that would make mech very vulnerable. It was not hard to see back then that the design team first goal is to make sure that the game wasn't like BW. Then maybe the second goal was to make a well designed game. I just find it funny that back then anyone that pointed these same issues was instantly labeled as a "BW elitist" that just "wanted SC2 to be exactly like BW". Well if anything that is *not* like BW is *bad design* then probably you don't really need SC2, right? I mean BW is still alive and you can always play it, and it's a lot of fun
It seems that after 7 years we still have the same exact response going on. It's good to know some things never change. Where exactly I said that anything that is not like BW is bad design? Are you reading minds now? I just said that some things in the game are badly design (obviously in my opinion). They could have made it right and not copied BW. Unfortunely, they didn't.
Just to make it clearer. In the goliath vs thor issue, they could have made a different unit that was not a goliath, but actually fulfill the design role that goliath did. The problem is they put a worst unit (the thor) just for the sake of being different. That happened in several other situations as well.
|
On January 27 2017 21:16 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 20:00 Turb0Sw4g wrote:
A third point is that Medivacs are to supply efficient because they mix two roles (Transport and Healer). Imagine if these roles were split as they were in BW (into Dropship and Medic). The equivalent of a 2 Medivac 16 Marine (4 + 16 = 20 supply) drop would be 2 Dropships, 2 medics and 12 Marines (4 + 4 + 12 = 20 supply). This equals an immediate 25% DPS drop because you have 1/4th less Marines. Not to mention that fights would require more skill because Medics are slower than stimmed Marines/Marauders and you would have to wait for them to catch up. I was thinking about that issue as well but no matter how hard i tried to find a reasonable solution, i realised it could only be brought down to nerfing medivac healing/stim so that they would look like their BW counterparts. So, essentially, it will just lead to BW2. I mean, do we really need that?
I'm not sure about the solution either. But, I think it's pretty clear that having units without clear cut roles/responsibilities consistently leads to balance problems.
Off the top of my head, here's the units which have mixed roles for all races
- Terran
- Medivac (transport, healing)
- Liberator (anti-air/splash anti-air, siege)
- Reaper (scouting, harassment, crowd control)
KD8 Charge is a light form of crowd control.
- Protoss
- Oracle (vision/detection, harassment, crowd control)
Stasis Ward gives crowd control.
- Adept (scouting, harassment, tanking)
- Zerg
- Queen (macro, healing, anti-air, anti-ground)
I think it's easy to see that these units are or have been problematic. Personally, I think it would make balancing the game a lot easier if the roles were more distinct. For example, giving Zerg Tier 1.5 Hydras—Hatchery + Hydra Den only tech requirement—and removing all attacks from the Queen would prevent a lot of abuse (mass Queen, Nydus strats especially).
|
On January 27 2017 21:46 Turb0Sw4g wrote:
I'm not sure about the solution either. But, I think it's pretty clear that having units without clear cut roles/responsibilities consistently leads to balance problems.
I agree, but it still sounds pretty abstract.
Ofc every design decision should be as simplier and clearer as possible, but BW had "kinda" taken that niche so SC2 designers are "kinda" forced to search for new solutions.
|
On January 27 2017 22:12 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 21:46 Turb0Sw4g wrote:
I'm not sure about the solution either. But, I think it's pretty clear that having units without clear cut roles/responsibilities consistently leads to balance problems. I agree, but it still sounds pretty abstract. Ofc every design decision should be as simplier and clearer as possible, but BW had "kinda" taken that niche so SC2 designers are "kinda" forced to search for new solutions.
Don't really agree that they were forced to make something new, nor that they should have done something to change what made BW what it is.
On January 27 2017 22:12 insitelol wrote:
I agree, but it still sounds pretty abstract.
Ok, I'll flesh it out a little.
- Terran
- Medivac
Change: Split into Dropship and Medic.
Reasoning: This makes drops less supply and cost efficient. Also stim-and-a-move is less viable because Medics are slower than stimmed Marines/Marauders. This opens up the possibility to make non-Bio units stronger in straight up engagements.
- Liberator (
anti-air/splash anti-air, harassment, siege)
Change: Remove anti-air (to make it unable to trade with air units). Put behind Tech Lab and Fusion Core requirement. Make Liberation Zone cone shape (e.g. 1/5th of a circle in front of the Liberator). (Potentially buff Concord Canon.)
Reasoning: The Liberator now has a clear role which is pushing positions. It will always require support units to cover flanks and guard against air, so massing Liberators is automatically discouraged. The anti-air/anti-air-splash role is removed from the Liberator (that's the job of Thors and Vikings anyway). The harassment role is not removed but made less viable because Liberators can be flanked more easily (A2G harassment imo should be the Banshee's job in case you're wondering).
- Reaper (scouting, harassment,
crowd control)
Change: Remove KD8 Charge and Combat Drugs.
Reasoning: Reapers now only scout and potentially deal a little damage. 3 Rax Reaper wouldn't work anymore because of permanent damage and because Reapers cannot fight straight up without KD8 Charge.
- Protoss
- Oracle (vision/detection,
harassment, crowd control)
Change: Simply remove the death beam and maybe make the Stasis Ward a little less expensive.
Reasoning: Lo and behold, Queens suddenly do not need anti-air anymore in PvZ early game. No more Oracle bullshit. Lower cost on stasis makes defending third bases easier for Protoss which balances out the loss of harassment potential.
- Adept (
scouting, harassment, tanking)
Change: Replace Psionic Transfer with an ability which simply gives them more movement speed so you can micro better. A passive ability which builds movement speed stacks each attack and decays after a while would be cool.
Reason: Adept is just a combat unit now and cannot be abused for scouting. Shading on top of enemy armies is also impossible now.
- Zerg
- Queen (macro, healing,
anti-air, anti-ground)
Change: Remove attacks and instead make Hydras Tier 1.5 (Hatcher + Hydra Den tech requirement).
Reason: Zerg is basically save against every early game air threat with Tier 1.5 Hydras and mass Queen bullshit is now heavily discouraged as it should be.
Obviously it's hard to estimate what this would do in the end. To me it looks like that having more compact roles on these units would immediately solve a lot of problematic stuff (OP Liberators, 3 Rax Reaper, mass Queen bullshit, Oracle/Adept harassment). I also think it's a general principle that should be kept in mind when unit changes are considered.
|
The solution of the bio problem cannot be thought of a fixed state but a process. Whenever you try to think of a state it wont work as there are too many variables. A potential process I described a few times already:
1. Put SC2 back in WOL state of the beginning. Remove all LOTV & HOTS units, upgrades, removed upgrades, etc. (e.g. 3 range roaches.)
2. Then remove marine shields and the whole marauder and balance terran as well as the other races roughly around that. (that can include switching place of roaches and hydras and putting ravager and lurker then on top of either of these units (I suggest lurker nerf but lurker on top of the unit that is tier 1 then), rough balance is enough as many things can and will be added for nuances later, it will e.g. include nerf of banelings so that it makes sense to mix a few of them into armies but that they are not main component like now, I expect about 50% of the damage that they got now, etc.)
3. Potentially re-integrate marauders and marine shields in a way where they are an option but not a must have. That can take place in later stages of the game. I suggested marauders as a tier 3 unit that requires an academy as one possible solution.
4. Add step by step HOTS and LOTV units back to the game into niche roles or roles that must be filled still. Continue the balancing process. I suggest to keep out or drastically change units like the oracle, msc, host, liberator.
5. Done. SC2 will be fun to play now.
Explanations:
i)
The medivac mechanics:
- the extended hitpoints for biological units during fights. Scales with the amount of total hitpoints a unit has. Can be canceled almost completely with focus fire on single bio units. Comes down to dmg/sec on a unit in combination with max hitpoints and the healing rate.
- the free units after fights. Scales heavily with hitpoints of biological units. Healing up damaged marines to 40hp is not a problem at all. Healing up 10hp marauders to 125hp is a problem.
- the mobility combined with the two mechanics above. Mobility is not a problem at all, boost is not too. Dropping 4 helions or 2 tanks is not an issue. The issue is being created solely in combination with the two mechanics above:
a) dropped units that get extended hitpoints during fights (scales with max hp).
b) dropped units that can be loaded in and taken out and then being healed up to full hp (free units, scales with max hp).
ii)
Macro mechanics serve gameplay issues and do not initially exist. They can be changed and adapted within seconds to serve new gameplays/metagames. They come in in the end to micro-balance overall racial issues. As someone stated the mule to serve current bio heavy play. The larva inject to allow zerg to drone and build fighting units from the same building. They cannot be held responsible as a source for problems. As blizzard recognized that they reverted them almost back to HOTS level. The underlyings are the issue to be solved, then these can be adapted.
iii)
Creating stringent increase of dynamics through the phases of the game. The current game is highly dynamical in the beginning and most things are being decided there as everything scales up from then. Bio is the reason for that.
- bio is standalone in the beginning but has to be complemented later on with units that take away those dynamics to a certain extend. It would be good to give terran that standalone bio that creates highly dynamical play in the lategame (marauder tier 3 unit).
- in general games get stuck in deathball vs. deathball scenarios after some time and positional play. When MSC & 10+ warpgates or mass queens, spores/spines and full laid out creep are in place little drops have minor relevance later on compared to earlier. That should be the other way round. Therefore the right choice is not to buff those mechanics that apply later on but to nerf the ones that make it overly useful at the start of a match (oracle, marauder).
iv)
Split up fights. Terran bio is overpowered in split up fights, which creates many of the issues which resulted in non-needed buffs to counter that which cause follow-up problems. With removal of marauder and the change in scale of the medivac mechanics shown above these issues get lesser.
v)
Concept of variance. High variances are main reasons for frustration with SC2. Bio is the source of that. How many connections do banelings get? How many connections on banelings do mines get? Do colossi get some lucky massive shots on the bio before they die or not? Does a 3/4 roach drop defense focus fire a 1 medivac bio drop instantly and before one roach dies or just a second too late so that sniping out and negating medivac mechanics is barely possible anymore? Can be endlessly continued and is almost all about bio. I don't want to play a game where a mine can either hit 10+ banelings or does almost nothing as it explodes on a single zergling or overlord. Variance affects all levels of play and hence we see many SC2 koreans switch back to broodwar and also almost never anyone to stay on top for a longer period of time (yes, MVP consistency was mainly due to racial balance, when balance got more in par his results became more variant). Not even boxer himself can prevent that the massive variance of sc2 overshadows many of his efforts to an extend, where it is just purely frustrating.
vi)
Micro vs. macro. Micro is the more valuable the less effective it is. Only then it can be countered and only then constancy of micro matters. Micro is not in a single fight to snipe all templars at the same time within a second, to feedback all ghosts within a second, to spam out max possible energy of a unit as fast as possible in fights. This is variance. Micro is to strategically and continuously deploy spells (when looking at spell use here) during the period of a fight. The periods should be extended not shortened with more and more op units/spells/mechanics. In broodwar a protoss had to hold back psi-storm against zerg so that he can wait and spot perfect moments of stacked units to deploy them. Using all in the beginning of a fight might have lead to instant lose. In SC2 it is best to initially spam out all psi storms before them get sniped or banelinged and in order to summon archons as fast as possible.
I repeat: the less impact micro has the more interesting it gets. The less impact micro has the more micro is necessary to be considered "good micro". The more impact excellent players can have with micro. This is a concept blizzard hasn't understood after almost 7 years. Due to that micro usually is being seen as minor relevant compared to macro. You gotta only have to be in time at the few major fights that happen in a game instead of constantly using micro. Micro is negated by bio.
You cannot micro anything against bio that is less mobile than bio. Got roach/hydra and bio is superior? Better care on your macro meanwhiles and let it happen otherwise you get 100% rekt. When you macro instead of micro during that fight you at least got a 10-20% chance to stay in game after, same applies to protoss, hence MSC.
That has an overall detrimental impact on the attractiveness of SC2. 90% of fights are one-sided. Games get only interesting to watch (and play) in two out of three possible scenarios. 1. players trade almost equally and the game stays balanced. 2. Bio gets dominated but with shells, stim and medivac has the option to opt out. 3. Bio dominates and nothing of the opponent escapes. Some get shelled and can barely move anymore, a bit more far away get chased with stim and if anything is still left after that that tries to escape (e.g. roaches, hydras, immortals, etc.) you load in a bunch of bio into a medivac, boost behind and kill it as well. This is when games usually get uninteresting as this is not fair, it is unbalanced to the most possible degree.
That does not automatically translate into an overall racial imbalance. Why?
Because players adapt. Zergs just don't build roach/hydra but anything that is more mobile than bio and protoss just does not attack at all when unsure if victorious or not but stays back. The stuck games sitting on deathballs maneuvering positions for best possible positioning with alot of passivity in late games is born. As players adapt the issue about bio becomes less visible. The high level games we watch it might be the case that it is alright. It is for sure not.
Sry, wanted to write less. But one more to add.
vii)
Change can happen in environments that want and allow change. TL and the leading spokesmen did their best to create an environment which prevents that for years. Fun fact about that is the decline of SC2, which took place due to lack of required change directly affects the financial success of TL. So preventing that was neither good for SC2 nor for TL.
I have been mentioning it before but in concurrent times of one-dimensional coverage and press work/fight this cannot be emphasized enough. Everybody could have seen the endless articles and news about how great flash was/is, about how great mvp was, about best players of all time which majorly was terran favored, about 30+ pages (which I luckily never read, as meaningless) about how up terran is from a guy that had nothing else in mind than to create an pleasurable environment to play for himself, as a terran. Of course that condenses into discussions where good and reasonable opinions get muzzled and people get banned for stating opinions. As this is about terran bio mainly, terrans are going to be not happy about what I write, I understand.
But system of checks and balances is not a pyramid where pro-players and casters can know and decide everything. Compare it with business. Why do all kinds of businesses benefit from external consultancy? Cause people who operate the business for years get blind for things external people might spot. The stock markets and analysts evaluate businesses not the operators themselves. You can see me as an analyst. After 20 years in (WC2, 28.8k) and without having any ambitions to be or become a pro-player I have enough distance to bring some rather neutral analysis to what is the problem of SC2. Played protoss 98' to 2005, Terran + random 2005-2010, zerg 2010+. People who operate it every day may easily get stuck in thinking patterns that are narrow without it being the fault of them in person. It happens to everyone.
Allow change to happen, make it fucking great (not again but for once). Complete another redesign in one year from now. If you get all that right what I described SC2 can become a fun and challenging game and successful esports for another decade to come. If not stay stuck. Take it or leave it.
|
I cannot comprehend how anyone can look at the current state of the game and through out starcraft 2 history and say "yeah, the core problem is bio".
It really makes me understand why it is hard for blizzard to take any feedback..
|
A small hydra health boost would make a huge difference in late game, esp vs. carriers, and a little vs. mech. I'd say, both of which would be amazing (though, I get that mech is struggling).
|
On January 27 2017 18:25 JoFar wrote:
Terran is just bad designed (not only at the moment, but for years). Each race should have an advantage going for tier 3 Tech units. Zerg has and needs BL, Ultras or Vipers in a lot of late game szenarios. Protoss has and needs Colossi, HT, Carrier and even the hugely nerfed Tempest in a lot of late game szenarios.
Terran has ghosts, thors and BC (okay, maybe raven too, hard to say if it's more T2 or T3). But besides ghosts your nearly never need Thors or BCs. Not because they are too week ... they are just not needed, cause bio compositions, esp. with wm/lib and as i mentioned maybe ghosts can deal very decent with most of the other races late game compositions ...
THERE should the changes be setted.
This is a great point. So many zergs die right when trying to switch into t3 tech, while the terran really just needs to add more vikings/raven, if BL, or more marauders and more drops, if ultras. It's a very modest tech switch for T.
I also agree with the other post that mentions mobile healing + bio as a core issue... perhaps medivacs could cost even +1 more supply, to limit the cost efficiency of a 200/200 army later?
|
-please delete-
double post
|
On January 28 2017 00:36 Gullis wrote:
I cannot comprehend how anyone can look at the current state of the game and through out starcraft 2 history and say "yeah, the core problem is bio".
It really makes me understand why it is hard for blizzard to take any feedback..
You do not because your main concern probably is to have a perfectly balanced pro-level SC2, not an SC2 with fun and strategical mechanics and interactions.
Also when you play terran yourself of course your problem is not bio but what is built around and against it. You fail to see the connection and lack the vision.
http://www.rankedftw.com/player/519255/
Terran player.
Nuff said.
|
I agree with you that the insane dps density of bio play is a problem, but it's not only bio tbh, it's a lot of ranged armies in general. I think another pathing system alone would already drastically change this (so you cannot move your whole army in a way where it's still able to attack at 100% efficiency instantly)
Medivac also shouldn't be in the game the way it is, i would rather have a split to dropships and medics again tbh. That way you have a decision (do i want to drop?, we can nerf mobility + photon overcharge and other stuff simply because terrans won't drop you all game 24/7) and you need to build bio units which don't attack = less marines + less dps density.
I think these two changes alone already improve the interactions a lot, other than that you would need to test it.
I like your paragraph about micro though, you are right. Micro should be about doing a lot of little thing repeatedly which give you an advantage and not "burst micro" which results immediately into a huge advantage. (obviously you cannot remove this entirely, but lessen it at least)
Also a thing to consider is the general pacing of the game (the lower the army count the better the interactions). Imo the only reasonable solution is to get the economy/macro mechanics/pacing right first and balance everything around that
|
On January 28 2017 01:02 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:36 Gullis wrote:
I cannot comprehend how anyone can look at the current state of the game and through out starcraft 2 history and say "yeah, the core problem is bio".
It really makes me understand why it is hard for blizzard to take any feedback..
You do not because your main concern probably is to have a perfectly balanced pro-level SC2, not an SC2 with fun and strategical mechanics and interactions. Also when you play terran yourself of course your problem is not bio but what is built around and against it. You fail to see the connection and lack the vision. http://www.rankedftw.com/player/519255/Terran player. Nuff said.
Pathetic. He has no valid point because of the race he plays?
The balancing of this game is beyond most people, including yourself, which is why we have a balance team. Everybody has a viewpoint that should be considered, even those in the lower divisions, as it is the breadth of playerbase that will make SC2 survive.
|
On January 28 2017 02:22 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 01:02 LSN wrote:On January 28 2017 00:36 Gullis wrote:
I cannot comprehend how anyone can look at the current state of the game and through out starcraft 2 history and say "yeah, the core problem is bio".
It really makes me understand why it is hard for blizzard to take any feedback..
You do not because your main concern probably is to have a perfectly balanced pro-level SC2, not an SC2 with fun and strategical mechanics and interactions. Also when you play terran yourself of course your problem is not bio but what is built around and against it. You fail to see the connection and lack the vision. http://www.rankedftw.com/player/519255/Terran player. Nuff said. Pathetic. He has no valid point because of the race he plays? The balancing of this game is beyond most people, including yourself, which is why we have a balance team. Everybody has a viewpoint that should be considered, even those in the lower divisions, as it is the breadth of playerbase that will make SC2 survive.
He has no point because he had no point. There was nothing to the post at all.
|
|
|
Well you can call it as you want, but obviously a terran player would never in any case come to the conclusion that bio might be a problem for the game.
You know what I call phatetic?
I explained in detail what effects bio has on the game. How players adapt and how unwanted effects are conditioned, how solutions are built around bio instead of adressing bio directly. The guy puts a one liner that he don't want to believe. That is phatetic.
What I call phatetic is how terran's consequently deny the problem with bio but then tend to be the biggest whiners in the community how up terran is and how strong counters to bio are.
Of course the basic bio mechanics are fun for terrans. Bio controls games and metagames and even balance/design development in a major fashion.
You know why p/z have less of a problem with each other? Cause it is a mutual thing there. Both can do stuff that forces the other one into doing things and all or almost all units have a place in that matchup, not only one-sided. With terran it is mostly single-sided and no matter what e.g. a zerg builds, it is countered by different compositions consisting of 80% bio.
People who sit on that playing terran and whine about balance and defend bio are phatetic while the whole SC2 could be helped with fixing some of the bio issues for the greater good.
|
On January 28 2017 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 02:22 DeadByDawn wrote:On January 28 2017 01:02 LSN wrote:On January 28 2017 00:36 Gullis wrote:
I cannot comprehend how anyone can look at the current state of the game and through out starcraft 2 history and say "yeah, the core problem is bio".
It really makes me understand why it is hard for blizzard to take any feedback..
You do not because your main concern probably is to have a perfectly balanced pro-level SC2, not an SC2 with fun and strategical mechanics and interactions. Also when you play terran yourself of course your problem is not bio but what is built around and against it. You fail to see the connection and lack the vision. http://www.rankedftw.com/player/519255/Terran player. Nuff said. Pathetic. He has no valid point because of the race he plays? The balancing of this game is beyond most people, including yourself, which is why we have a balance team. Everybody has a viewpoint that should be considered, even those in the lower divisions, as it is the breadth of playerbase that will make SC2 survive. He has no point because he had no point. There was nothing to the post at all.
Not true.
First, LSN 'Terran player. Nuff said.'. This is totally unacceptable, we don't discriminate on race.
Second, Gullis was (tersely) questioning that some people have looked at the problems with SC2 and decided it is bio's strength that is the core problem. Some people believe that, not all, and he does not agree. If it was so easy to identify the problems with the game, then the balance team would have done it, and there would not be so many dissenting voices.
To really understand if bio is the problem we need to look at the internal development builds of SC2 before it was released. Was the strength of bio a reaction to the strength of the gimmicky warp in mechanic that allows Protoss to skip the build cycle, or the insta-remax of Zerg, which is absurdly powerful when combined with a tech switch. And ever since we have been in an arms race as Blizz attempts to provide each race the tools to counter the other races OP'ness.
|
Terrans are discriminating both other races here on TL for ages. Protoss especially but zerg as well to a certain extend.
I am sick of arguing against made up stuff.
No you need to just apply common sense. Macro mechanics are things that were implemented to serve the game not the other way round. Claiming that bio was a result of larva inject is nothing but naive.
|
On January 28 2017 02:45 LSN wrote:
Well you can call it as you want, but obviously a terran player would never in any case come to the conclusion that bio might be a problem for the game.
You know what I call phatetic?
I explained in detail what effects bio has on the game. How players adapt and how unwanted effects are conditioned, how solutions are built around bio instead of adressing bio directly. The guy puts a one liner that he don't want to believe. That is phatetic.
What I call phatetic is how terran's consequently deny the problem with bio but then tend to be the biggest whiners in the community how up terran is and how strong counters to bio are.
Of course the basic bio mechanics are fun for terrans. Bio controls games and metagames and even balance/design development in a major fashion.
You know why p/z have less of a problem with each other? Cause it is a mutual thing there. Both can do stuff that forces the other one into doing things and all or almost all units have a place in that matchup, not only one-sided. With terran it is mostly single-sided and no matter what e.g. a zerg builds, it is countered by different compositions consisting of 80% bio.
People who sit on that playing terran and whine about balance and defend bio are phatetic while the whole SC2 could be helped with fixing some of the bio issues for the greater good.
Well you can call it as you want, but obviously a terran player would never in any case come to the conclusion that bio might be a problem for the game.
Ah cmon man, that's just wrong and gets us nowhere. That's a non argument used as excuse to not engage other arguments (well he didn't have one to begin with, but you get the point)
|
On January 28 2017 02:45 LSN wrote:
Well you can call it as you want, but obviously a terran player would never in any case come to the conclusion that bio might be a problem for the game.
You know what I call phatetic?
I explained in detail what effects bio has on the game. How players adapt and how unwanted effects are conditioned, how solutions are built around bio instead of adressing bio directly. The guy puts a one liner that he don't want to believe. That is phatetic.
What I call phatetic is how terran's consequently deny the problem with bio but then tend to be the biggest winers in the community how up terran is and how strong counters to bio are.
Of course the basic bio mechanics are fun for terrans. Bio controls games and metagames and even balance/design development in a major fashion.
You know why p/z have less of a problem with each other? Cause it is a mutual thing there. Both can do stuff that forces the other one into doing things not only one sided. With terran it is mostly single-sided and no matter what e.g. a zerg builds, it is countered by different compositions consisting of 80% bio.
People who sit on that playing terran and whine about balance and defend bio are phatetic while the whole SC2 could be helped with fixing some of the bio issues.
Well I am mainly a Terran player, probably 90% of the time.
When I started playing SC2 in the WoL days, coming from the other SC (Supreme Commander) and the C&C series, I picked Terran as I like the idea of fighting to save humanity from alien races.
I tried to play transitional play, going for bio early to survive and drop, transitioning into mech with air support. Things I had done in other games. But it did not work, the different units types did not synergize well, and the split upgrades meant that it was difficult to win. The better strat was just to power bio, which was fun but limited.
If Blizz could balance the game and make it so that I could do that, or sometimes end the game early with my early units if I catch my opponent out (and he can do the same) then I would be really happy. I like diversity, I do not like to win all the time, I want to see my Terran heroes (Inno, Gumiho) lose and win so that wins are meaningful. I want to be able to be active at all stages of the game, and I want a siege tank that kicks ass, but can get its ass kicked.
|
Plus I want to have fun, but that should be implied, it is a game - why else would I play it.
Perhaps Blizz should have that above the door of the offices: Rule #1 Players must have fun.
|
My post was more of an outlet of frustration in the context of a post I made yesterday.
On January 27 2017 06:59 Gullis wrote:
It is pretty dumb to talk about bio being to strong without even mentioning the production mechanics of the other races,
Bio had to be "to strong" because of warp gates( which is cancerous as fuck) and to a lesser degree injects.
Even with bio being so strong we still have had times when terran got straight up owned by gateway units because of warp gate.
In the end I think it is pretty redundant to discuss if it is "op bio" that forces "op splash" or "op warp gate/inject" that forces "op bio", because it is all part of "terrible terrible damage", the economy and the hard counter system which I think is the real causes of the frustration with this game.
|
After almost 7 years of SC2 and no solutions have been found for the basic problems that obviously exist in game design, after many discussions have been held and many things have been tried one thing is still there to stand strong and be defended by every terran player:
In no way bio could potentially be the reason!
Lets rather find more other excuses. Larva inject is the problem, which everyone and their mother could adapt to any different game design within a few minutes to serve it as well as it serves the current game design. lol
|
LSN I aprreciate work u put into your analysis and i must admit that I agree with its conclusions.
But have no delusions- most of ppl here will neve lr read this or even try to think about it.
I would add that macro mechanics in current state of the game in ZvT favors Terran a lot too. More workers at the beginning means faster orbital and faster mule, that provides even faster second orbital and mule. Tjat means even more minerals. And concidering that BIO costs mainly minerals it scales out of hand. In the same time Zerg has nerfed larva. That means less drones in early game and in the end slower 4th saturation. That's why Terran pressure and harras hurts even more as u cannot spend larva into drones and units efficiently enough to stop pressure. U must produce units with that limited larva so that slows your economy even more. Effect is that Terran push comes ehen u are starting to build your 4th or trying to saturate it (if you rush to 4th) . In HOTS when Terran pushed, u had your 4th already mining. This LOTV ecnomy model means snowball effect for both races. But for Terran it is positive, for Zerg negative. Sad but true. In the end Terran on 3 bases with mules outproduces Zerg with the most cost efficient composition which MMM is. That's pretty much imbalance to me.
|
Yeah and that is being countered by dumb mechanics like mass armour ultralisks, mass range hydras (reversed), even stronger op banelings (reverted) which mess up and are almost BIS in ZvP now, to create a feeling of balance.
|
Understand, that whatever the reason for the state of SC2, that what you are asking for is SC2 2.0. Changing fundamental units such as the marine, and especially its interaction with the medivac, will lead to a cascade of nerfs and buffs to ALL races.
The only thing that we can expect is balance tweaks. SC2 seems doomed to swing between periods of Protoss dominance, Zerg dominance and Terran dominance as balance patches alter the meta.
Blizzard will never (again) make fundamental changes to SC2 - see how quickly they backed off removing the macro boosters as Terran collapsed as bio was no longer viable, and mech was never an option.
|
Sure, why not? Who can do 8 armor ultras, 7 range queens and hydras (or was it 8?), who puts in dumb stuff like MSC pylon cannon can as well do some tweaks to bio.
Just of how you base your arguments you can see already what is wrong. Any change to bio would be so fundamental that you call it SC2.0 and everything else is minor compared to that.
|
On January 28 2017 03:44 DeadByDawn wrote:
Understand, that whatever the reason for the state of SC2, that what you are asking for is SC2 2.0. Changing fundamental units such as the marine, and especially its interaction with the medivac, will lead to a cascade of nerfs and buffs to ALL races.
The only thing that we can expect is balance tweaks. SC2 seems doomed to swing between periods of Protoss dominance, Zerg dominance and Terran dominance as balance patches alter the meta.
Blizzard will never (again) make fundamental changes to SC2 - see how quickly they backed off removing the macro boosters as Terran collapsed as bio was no longer viable, and mech was never an option.
Oh come on, lets be honest here. They never gave removing macro boosters a TRUE try. There was more work to be done before a true attempt was completed. It was clear as day that mineral costs needed to be readjusted for Terran, same as larvae would need to be rebalanced for Zerg and build/research times for Protoss.
All 3 macro boosters affect the economies differently. They share one thing in common - accelerating the economy in a specific way. So if you remove those, you need to repair the races appropriately.
All signs from LotV beta indicate that this was the plan at the time. They said they were going to move forward and make adjustments appropriately. They spoke to Korean pros and said the response was positive so they were going to keep the changes.
Then... something happened at Blizzard. All of a sudden, they "announced a release date announcement" saying "it might be earlier than you think" - which was very strange because a couple months earlier they just said it was going to be "by far the longest Beta a RTS ever had at Blizzard".
Then they say in the community update "we're not sure about this direction moving forward, we're not sure if we should be chasing the best design, or if we should be removing a skill players have practiced for years". After clearly stating they were confident in their decision and moving forward, suddenly they are not sure?
Next community update - "We have decided to revert back to HotS power macro boosters because of the negative perception of some members in the community". No, they didn't say they did it because they think its"best for the game". They even ADMITTED in the past update that they knew no MM was better design. But they chose against it, with the supposed reason of PERCEPTION??? Not even something real, but... perception of "some people"??? It did not make sense.
Then the release date announcement - weekend of Blizzcon. Which again - very strange, Blizzard Store page at the time said March 2016 release date! And if you go by their comments of "this will be the longest RTS beta" - it ended in the exact amount of months of HotS beta - basically turning themselves in to liars.
All of this indicates that, the original plan was to have a longer development cycle. They knew MM removal needed more time to be rebalanced. But something happened at Blizzard (likely something was pushed from Blizzcon). LotV got pushed up, and they didn't have time to remove MM. For the first time, a Blizzard game was RUSHED before it was ready. And the game has been suffering ever since.
12 worker start was designed around NOT having accelerated economy from macro boosters - 12 worker start was not a problem in beta without MM. But once they put the macro boosters back, the economies were out of control. Each economy snowballs in completely different ways - they might get numbers looking good statistically, but they will never be able to make it "feel" fair when economies are not controlled and snowball in different ways between the races. Economies are the backbone that affects every aspect of an RTS game. They need to have some form of control and limitation, asymmetric economies will never feel good without a solid way to keep them under control - and that was always a bit of a problem with SC2 - but in LotV with the MM combined with 12 worker start, it became a huge problem.
So no, they did not back off of removing macro boosters because of Terran "collapsing". They backed off removing macro boosters because they simply did not give the game appropriate time to develop. They had to make a decision of which game is going to have to take the hit and be rushed, and they decided LotV would do the least amount of damage.
And they have been doing PR to try to repair the damage ever since. Hence, all these bullshit community updates with little substance and asking for "community guidance" and never going thru with the changes promised.
|
On January 28 2017 03:17 LSN wrote:
After almost 7 years of SC2 and no solutions have been found for the basic problems that obviously exist in game design, after many discussions have been held and many things have been tried one thing is still there to stand strong and be defended by every terran player:
In no way bio could potentially be the reason!
Lets rather find more other excuses. Larva inject is the problem, which everyone and their mother could adapt to any different game design within a few minutes to serve it as well as it serves the current game design. lol
I don't defend bio, I would be all for the removal of the marauder and split the medivac into medic and dropship.
However I dont like the narrative of "bio is the problem" because I think in tvt and in tvz marine tank have been fantastic gameplay. Meanwhile in tvp for the most part, any deviation from bio+viking have been completely shut down by somewhat binary abilities in the protoss arsenal, like feedback killing bc, thors and ravens, immortals absolutely owning tanks.
Additionally I think whatever issues marauder and medivacs brings I think they pale in comparison to what warp gates brings.
I didnt write this but this guy sums it up very well http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/407434-that-protoss-elephant
|
Whilst we will never know for surre what happened with the attempt to remove MM, it does seem that the release date was brought forward, so they cut the beta period.
The whole removal of MM was mishandled. Blizzard should have enough people with numerical analysis skills to model the new economy model and see how it affected each of the races differently in the early game, from this they could have made an initial stab at correcting the economy to see how it worked. They didn't, the game was totally unbalanced and they did not see a way to correct the balance in time and so reverted the changes.
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for.
|
On January 28 2017 04:41 Gullis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:17 LSN wrote:
After almost 7 years of SC2 and no solutions have been found for the basic problems that obviously exist in game design, after many discussions have been held and many things have been tried one thing is still there to stand strong and be defended by every terran player:
In no way bio could potentially be the reason!
Lets rather find more other excuses. Larva inject is the problem, which everyone and their mother could adapt to any different game design within a few minutes to serve it as well as it serves the current game design. lol
I don't defend bio, I would be all for the removal of the marauder and split the medivac into medic and dropship. However I dont like the narrative of "bio is the problem" because I think in tvt and in tvz marine tank have been fantastic gameplay. Meanwhile in tvp for the most part, any deviation from bio+viking have been completely shut down by somewhat binary abilities in the protoss arsenal, like feedback killing bc, thors and ravens, immortals absolutely owning tanks. Additionally I think whatever issues marauder and medivacs brings I think they pale in comparison to what warp gates brings. I didnt write this but this guy sums it up very well http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/407434-that-protoss-elephant
It's not the fact that bio is viable that's the problem, it's the strength and lack of weaknesses for bio. Imagine if adepts were healed by warp prisms or roaches were healed by overlords and they had the boost ability, you'd have to nerf other protoss and zerg units to compensate for that insane strength and utility. Make 1 army composition a reliable comp for the entire length of the game and you have to weaken the other aspects of that race.
|
On January 28 2017 05:52 TheZergishOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:41 Gullis wrote:On January 28 2017 03:17 LSN wrote:
After almost 7 years of SC2 and no solutions have been found for the basic problems that obviously exist in game design, after many discussions have been held and many things have been tried one thing is still there to stand strong and be defended by every terran player:
In no way bio could potentially be the reason!
Lets rather find more other excuses. Larva inject is the problem, which everyone and their mother could adapt to any different game design within a few minutes to serve it as well as it serves the current game design. lol
I don't defend bio, I would be all for the removal of the marauder and split the medivac into medic and dropship. However I dont like the narrative of "bio is the problem" because I think in tvt and in tvz marine tank have been fantastic gameplay. Meanwhile in tvp for the most part, any deviation from bio+viking have been completely shut down by somewhat binary abilities in the protoss arsenal, like feedback killing bc, thors and ravens, immortals absolutely owning tanks. Additionally I think whatever issues marauder and medivacs brings I think they pale in comparison to what warp gates brings. I didnt write this but this guy sums it up very well http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/407434-that-protoss-elephant It's not the fact that bio is viable that's the problem, it's the strength and lack of weaknesses for bio. Imagine if adepts were healed by warp prisms or roaches were healed by overlords and they had the boost ability, you'd have to nerf other protoss and zerg units to compensate for that insane strength and utility. Make 1 army composition a reliable comp for the entire length of the game and you have to weaken the other aspects of that race.
That is not an equivalent comparison. The marine is 45 health, and loses 10 health each time it stims, Adepts are 130, have 1 armor and auto regenerate shields, Roaches are 145, have 1 armor and auto heal, very fast when burrowed. Without access to healing marines die in the blink of an eye.
Now splitting health and transport into medic and vac, if done with cost reductions, could work.
|
On January 28 2017 04:48 DeadByDawn wrote:
Whilst we will never know for surre what happened with the attempt to remove MM, it does seem that the release date was brought forward, so they cut the beta period.
The whole removal of MM was mishandled. Blizzard should have enough people with numerical analysis skills to model the new economy model and see how it affected each of the races differently in the early game, from this they could have made an initial stab at correcting the economy to see how it worked. They didn't, the game was totally unbalanced and they did not see a way to correct the balance in time and so reverted the changes.
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for.
Just pointing out, we know more than JUST that.
We also know the release date was the reason for MM changes - they were satisfied with their decision to remove MM, and went as far as to make an announcement that they were moving forward with it, before they pushed up the release date.
We know (from admitting it) that even Blizzard's lead designers were aware that no MM was better design for the game, but they intentionally decided against it.
We know 12 worker start was balanced around no MM.
We know that they had only a couple weeks of testing before going live with the final changes - so it was rushed to a point that the game was not even sufficiently tested (as those changes weren't even available with time in the beta).
We know this was one of the ways they planned to market & grow SC2's competitive future, by trying to bring in more players alongside the Archon mode (which we were also told was going to have been better supported, but never happened).
With that said, all these things do point to your last paragraph being true.
The only problem is, during Blizzcon they stated that in the future they WOULD be looking at the game again , and be willing to do ground up rebalance/design changes. Yet when the time came, it was a half assed balance update, where the majority of changes got dropped anyway.
Then they have the nerve to tell us "they removed the changes as the community wanted" (when polls at the time were 80% in favor of full MM removal) and when the time for a "design update" comes, again they have the nerve to say they "see it was the right decision as players are very happy with the update" - even though the #1 complaint about LotV since release has been the ridiculous economy growth/speed.
So players are rightfully upset. Bait & switched by the SC2 team yet again. So yeah, we "might get tweaks so we should ask for tweaks" is true to a point... but we were told we would get more. So we have every right to ask, and if they don't deliver, we can all give a collective "screw you" with our wallets (which is what I've been doing since LotV beta, when I purchased beta because they said they were happy with their direction and moving forward with the plan for release, then reverted the changes).
|
On January 28 2017 04:48 DeadByDawn wrote:
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for.
To be fair, major changes—potentially every year after Blillzcon—until the game is in a perfect state is what David Kim himself said was the end goal for Starcraft 2 (see here).
There is a mismatch between intention and execution however. Pretty big one actually. So, I can see why you think that we might only get tweaks and nothing "game changing".
On January 28 2017 06:26 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:48 DeadByDawn wrote:
Whilst we will never know for surre what happened with the attempt to remove MM, it does seem that the release date was brought forward, so they cut the beta period.
The whole removal of MM was mishandled. Blizzard should have enough people with numerical analysis skills to model the new economy model and see how it affected each of the races differently in the early game, from this they could have made an initial stab at correcting the economy to see how it worked. They didn't, the game was totally unbalanced and they did not see a way to correct the balance in time and so reverted the changes.
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for. The only problem is, during Blizzcon they stated that in the future they WOULD be looking at the game again , and be willing to do ground up rebalance/design changes. Yet when the time came, it was a half assed balance update, where the majority of changes got dropped anyway.
I think at one point they will come around and either realize that it is impossible to balance the game with MM in place and remove them; or, they will at least balance the game around no MM and then add them just as a tool for players to differentiate themselves.
Probably gonna take a long time though. 
|
On January 28 2017 07:55 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:48 DeadByDawn wrote:
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for. To be fair, major changes—potentially every year after Blillzcon—until the game is in a perfect state is what David Kim himself said was the end goal for Starcraft 2 ( see here). There is a mismatch between intention and execution however. Pretty big one actually. So, I can see why you think that we might only get tweaks and nothing "game changing". Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:26 Spyridon wrote:On January 28 2017 04:48 DeadByDawn wrote:
Whilst we will never know for surre what happened with the attempt to remove MM, it does seem that the release date was brought forward, so they cut the beta period.
The whole removal of MM was mishandled. Blizzard should have enough people with numerical analysis skills to model the new economy model and see how it affected each of the races differently in the early game, from this they could have made an initial stab at correcting the economy to see how it worked. They didn't, the game was totally unbalanced and they did not see a way to correct the balance in time and so reverted the changes.
And so, with all these shining examples of Blizzards ability, we are asking for a ground up rebalance/redesign? I think a lot of people believe that Blizzard are basically doing damage limitation now, on a game that is no longer on their A list. Tweaks is what we will get, tweaks are what we should focus on asking for. The only problem is, during Blizzcon they stated that in the future they WOULD be looking at the game again , and be willing to do ground up rebalance/design changes. Yet when the time came, it was a half assed balance update, where the majority of changes got dropped anyway. I think at one point they will come around and either realize that it is impossible to balance the game with MM in place and remove them; or, they will at least balance the game around no MM and then add them just as a tool for players to differentiate themselves. Probably gonna take a long time though.
Considering the direction of the game since LotV release, it's obvious that competitive SC2 is not a priority anymore.
So many of the pros leaving for BW has not altered their actions one bit.
And where has their development of SC2 went in to? Obviously not the patches, as you can create a list of every change since LotV release and it would be a rather small document.
Rather, development has primarily went in to mission packs & co-op mode.
This, to me, indicates very clearly that they are not banking on competitive SC2 anymore, but still trying to keep interest in other areas of SC2.
The only reason Blizzard does this traditionally, is to prevent competition with their other games, as they do not like to compete with themselves.
So it seems pretty clear that Blizzard is likely working on another RTS to fill that competitive void. My guess? Probably the SC: BW remaster. Blizzard Team 1 has been stated to be working on another project (Team 1 is responsible for their RTS division) - and it's not Heroes of the Storm.
This would explain exactly why they don't mind one bit that pros are going back to BW.
Also would explain why they are keeping competitive SC2 so differentiated, despite such a large % of the community being unsatisfied. It's a dirty marketing trick in the game industry, but pretty common. Keep players on the hook, but unhappy, wishing things were different, upset that noones listening, and then bam - announce the new release. The more unrest they had prior to the announcement, the more hype generated for the new release.
You see Blizzard do it with most of their expansions.
|
On January 28 2017 08:26 Spyridon wrote:
So it seems pretty clear that Blizzard is likely working on another RTS to fill that competitive void. My guess? Probably the SC: BW remaster. Blizzard Team 1 has been stated to be working on another project (Team 1 is responsible for their RTS division) - and it's not Heroes of the Storm.
I really doubt there is a "competitive RTS void". Everyone just plays ow/lol/dota/cs. That's why i reeeeally doubt there will be a new blizzard rts relatively soon (or ever). As Chris Sigaty stated in a recent interview with Rotti, blizzard DO want to do WC4 (for instance) but they have no ideas for what's their RTS gonna look like, he basically said: "guys you are welcome to share your ideas cause we are kinda lost". And it understandable to say the least. Modern (competetive) gaming tolerates no gameplay which involves heavy mechanics. So if there will be a new rts it will be a completely different beast.
On the other hand. What do we have in our RTS niche? BW and... that's it. Sure thing, BW is a masterpiece, but lets acknowledge its success is purely luck-based. Its concept is soooo fragile and controversial. I doubt BW original developers even understand what makes their game so awesome. If they could they would gladly reproduce it. But they tried and failed. We can't neglect the korean factor as well, because w/o korean scene it could happen we wouldn't even remember BW.
So, my point is. There is no such thing as rts, or lets say, a solid concept of its gameplay. We have 1 super successful game (mainly because of timing/luck/korea/w.e.), 1 game, that struggles really hard to repeat the success of its predecessor, and TONs of god forgotten titles modern people havent even heared about (including AoE, C&C etc), which are all in all not bad games at all, but mostly single player based made by 90s standards. I mean, what kind of new competetive RTS do you expect out of this? While blizzard themselves state their complete lack of understanding of what to do. What more should i say when DK states something like "we don't care about the sales we just want to make the hardest game ever"? They abandoned all hope.
|
[/QUOTE]
So it seems pretty clear that Blizzard is likely working on another RTS to fill that competitive void. My guess? Probably the SC: BW remaster. Blizzard Team 1 has been stated to be working on another project (Team 1 is responsible for their RTS division) - and it's not Heroes of the Storm.
[/QUOTE]
Yea agreed, I feel this is the direction they will go with.
|
On January 30 2017 21:41 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 08:26 Spyridon wrote:
So it seems pretty clear that Blizzard is likely working on another RTS to fill that competitive void. My guess? Probably the SC: BW remaster. Blizzard Team 1 has been stated to be working on another project (Team 1 is responsible for their RTS division) - and it's not Heroes of the Storm.
I really doubt there is a "competitive RTS void". Everyone just plays ow/lol/dota/cs. That's why i reeeeally doubt there will be a new blizzard rts relatively soon (or ever). As Chris Sigaty stated in a recent interview with Rotti, blizzard DO want to do WC4 (for instance) but they have no ideas for what's their RTS gonna look like, he basically said: "guys you are welcome to share your ideas cause we are kinda lost". And it understandable to say the least. Modern (competetive) gaming tolerates no gameplay which involves heavy mechanics. So if there will be a new rts it will be a completely different beast. On the other hand. What do we have in our RTS niche? BW and... that's it. Sure thing, BW is a masterpiece, but lets acknowledge its success is purely luck-based. Its concept is soooo fragile and controversial. I doubt BW original developers even understand what makes their game so awesome. If they could they would gladly reproduce it. But they tried and failed. We can't neglect the korean factor as well, because w/o korean scene it could happen we wouldn't even remember BW. So, my point is. There is no such thing as rts, or lets say, a solid concept of its gameplay. We have 1 super successful game (mainly because of timing/luck/korea/w.e.), 1 game, that struggles really hard to repeat the success of its predecessor, and TONs of god forgotten titles modern people havent even heared about (including AoE, C&C etc), which are all in all not bad games at all, but mostly single player based made by 90s standards. I mean, what kind of new competetive RTS do you expect out of this? While blizzard themselves state their complete lack of understanding of what to do. What more should i say when DK states something like "we don't care about the sales we just want to make the hardest game ever"? They abandoned all hope.
WC was far less mechanic heavy than SC anyway, so the first paragraph isn't really an issue.
Second paragraph... that's exactly why I believe it's going to be BW remaster that they are banking on.
I mean think about it, SC is known for its competitive scene. It may be suffering, but the scene still exists, it's still a very popular eSport. But they are supporting it very minimally at this point. Less than in years. And they are still investing in the mission packs/coop of SC2. They are selectively slacking on competitive SC2.
That is not a coincidence.
And they abandoned all hope? I don't believe that. They have never truly went to drastic measures. Blizzard does not give up on any games they create until they are profitable. They have digged themselves out of horrible situations before - just look at D3 in recent years. They have shown that, if necessary, they will change lead designers and do a complete revamp of the game. But again, they have chosen not to do this. What reason would they decide to let it be, and only work on mission packs/coop? Only reason they would accept declining popularity is to prevent competition.
Regarding Blizzard saying they don't know what to do? You have to draw the line between honest development, and PR. The only reason to leave development up to the community is PR. There's many very talented designers at Blizzard. They are selectively choosing not to put them on SC2. They are assigning them elsewhere.
Also, don't forget the other fact I mentioned - Blizzard has mentioned Team 1 is working on another game. Team 1 is the team that traditionally always worked on RTS series. After Heroes came out, team 1 was moved to Heroes. Team 1 was now moved elsewhere. This has to be something at least somewhat aligned to RTS gaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
