EPTCommunity Feedback Update- April 13 - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
_Epi_
Germany158 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On April 17 2017 17:05 ihatevideogames wrote: lmao @ people who think balancing should be done by 'taking turns' at which race is OP. That's not how you balance a game, you just want your free wins for a few months. Balancing in turns is however exactly how SC2 was always approaching it. People learned to adapt and now have their claims of being next in turn. At this point it would be easier to just switch back and forth between two balance patches in order to achieve that rotation of balance charackter that was maintained artificially yet. The patch balance policy is going to continue to not achieve anything else than that when not looking into fundamental mechanics but scratching at surfaces. In order to achieve different results, fundamental changes are necessary. The role of bio must be revamped and with that the roles of splash damage units/spells, economy pace, advantage scaling, fight pace, mobility (creep, stimpack, air unit speed). Anything that blizzard has done so far is just switching balance back and force and it is going to stay like that as by default the approach isn't capable of achieving anything else. It is not addressing the issues behind the issues, which remain to exist no matter if adapt has 40 or 80 hp. | ||
|
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
starkiller123
United States4030 Posts
On April 17 2017 21:12 LSN wrote: Balancing in turns is however exactly how SC2 was always approaching it. People learned to adapt and now have their claims of being next in turn. At this point it would be easier to just switch back and forth between two balance patches in order to achieve that rotation of balance charackter that was maintained artificially yet. The patch balance policy is going to continue to not achieve anything else than that when not looking into fundamental mechanics but scratching at surfaces. In order to achieve different results, fundamental changes are necessary. The role of bio must be revamped and with that the roles of splash damage units/spells, economy pace, advantage scaling, fight pace, mobility (creep, stimpack, air unit speed). Anything that blizzard has done so far is just switching balance back and force and it is going to stay like that as by default the approach isn't capable of achieving anything else. It is not addressing the issues behind the issues, which remain to exist no matter if adapt has 40 or 80 hp. Why "must" anything be changed? | ||
|
ruypture
United States367 Posts
On April 17 2017 19:27 _Epi_ wrote: Increase Adept supply by one, problem solved, you are welcome that doesn't solve the inherently poor design of the unit and its over saturation of the role the zealot fills. | ||
|
ruypture
United States367 Posts
obviously nothing "must" be changed. Nothing had to be changed when the game was released, or when HotS was released, or when LotV was released. But if you think about it, 100% bunker salvage, no requirement for hellion -> hellbat transform, tankivacs, having all those still in the game would probably suck. Those are just changes I remember off the top of my head. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
More honest it would be to just give 1/3 of the year the edge to one of the races in a rotating manner. As the truth is, that either carriers stay appealing and transitioning to them stays possible, then players are gonna keep doing it and they gonna frequently reach levels that feel too strong, or not, and that option will fall apart altogether just like pre carrier. There is hardly any inbetween. My approach would at the first place contain to increase those inbetweens that allow less sharp balancing later on to be more successful. I am not having the perfect answers right in this moment for that, but thats what I would be working on instead of discussing adapt HP or cooldown. The original problem of SC2 is that bio is perfect for either of the following situations in battles: 1. You win the battle: nothing can escape and you can most likely kill all of opponents army and chase it down with stimpack + medivac boost. 2. You lose the battle and you are likely to escape with a good chunk of the main army thanks to defensive stimpack + boost medivac as soon as it gets inefficient to fight. Compare that with compositions like roach/hydra vs. bio or protoss ground units (e.g. in WOL) vs bio. You will happen to notice that it is the opposite of what it is with bio: If you win battles most of bio is gonna escape, if you lose battles nothing of your army is gonna escape. Hence these races need other imabalanced mechanics to achieve 50/50 rates and all the gimmicky stuff that was added, which are now subject of the balance debate. I, instead, would have taken away from bio earlier, to not get into that trouble. The gameplay, metagames and balance patches/unit implementations are result of exactly that: - Zerg only builds units that escape these mechanics (1. + 2.). - Protoss doesn't attack at all and camps at 3-4 base for that one final attack or lategame superiority (depending on the current balance state), which forces terran into that final attack (SCV pull LoTV).# - Implementation of units that even out a bit what 1. + 2. does: Adepts, Oracles, MSC + spells, large pickup radius for mobile pylons as 1. + 2. applies even to bio drops, ravager and lurker to strengthen the missile zerg side. But does this change the core mechanic of 1. + 2.? It does not. And so it will unveil again and again in situations no matter how much you try to overshadow it. If it is only at the end of larger battles when 10 bio vs. 7/8 protoss or zerg missile units survive, terran got either the chance to chase them down or escape and protoss and zerg got neither and 1. + 2. applies again. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On April 15 2017 22:29 avilo wrote: Ok, have to post again here let's all be honest. The unit is a travesty to even be in the game. But now Blizzard is doing a bandaid fix to the fact that they arbitrarily nerfed widow mines versus Protoss. The Adept isn't a great unit design, and it overlaps with the Zealot too much (replaces it) much like the Tempest did to the Carrier in HOTS. But the Widow Mine is even worse. It's doesn't allow for the skillful usage that the Adept does, and overlaps with the Siege Tank too much. Axe em both. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
To put it in one sentence, the problem is the reduction of choice and variety and a shift in focus from anything else on that. Unit compositions: We see terran mostly to opt for bio to enable 1. + 2. and zerg prefably play that part of it's untis that can escape 1. + 2, which is ling/bling/muta. Metagames: Protoss mainly relying on gimmicky units to harrass with the fewest amount of risk and other than that stay on pure def until lategame/tech advantage. Implementation of units: Circle around that issue, trying to circumvent the 1. + 2. Balance design: We get mass armour ultalisks, and whatever else to balance that mechanic, trying to circumvent 1. + 2. Overall: The whole game circles around that issue, which is about fulfilling low end needs only (if you look at it in a pyramid). As these solutions however are by default not capable of fixing the core issue, the game is doomed to continue to stay in this vicious circle and cannot step ahead in order to refine other things higher up in that pyramid. Even if stuff up in this pyramid is perfectly designed and balanced, this fragile foundation of unit interactions with bio nullify that. The right thing to do is not to adapt the whole game on bio vs. x interactions but to alter bio. From a very subjective point of view, I can tell you, that it is neither fun for me to play e.g. with non ling/bling/muta against t and feel like running behind something all day long and at the same time it is as well minor fun to play bio terran, having to abuse these mechanics all the time in order to win and to face all that op shit that was put in place to counter that. It is a lose/lose situation. Following from that, the problem is that the funfactor decreases, the frustration, hate and bad feelings increase. Now you may say BW bio was able to chase stuff down as well and so do e.g. zerglings and helions. The difference is the stability. Running into 2-3 lurkers with chasing BW bio can be a game changer, lings are very fragile, helions as well and only damage to light units. Bio hover is very stable in doing that. Most damage, most anti air damage, least gas costs, heal up during fight, max mobility, highest efficiency in drops (of all terran units), decent tankyness with marauders and hellbats, etc. The stability of bio is a poblem. No matter how much difference you put in the design of different races, they all apply to to the same game rules and winning conditions. To compare things: Terran drops units into Z base, does damage, escapes with 0 losses or 1 marine loss. Zerg runby into terran base. It is always a trade off as most likely none of the lings survive. You exchange lings vs a few SCV and it is almost never worth it. Protoss: Was given the higher load in range of mobile pylon in order to take it closer to the terran range of things. Zerg: Look what they have done to nydus and drops of zerg. And still it is hardly worth it and considered cheese to do so. You actually see how much off the foundation of SC2 is from only looking at this very issue. The "not worth" it over time extends to the game as a whole. Maybe we should try to put zerg nydus cost to -50 // -50 and see if it is worth then, of course with keeping invincible nydus. lol | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 18 2017 03:48 LSN wrote: The problem is multilayered. To put it in one sentence, the problem is the reduction of choice and variety and a shift in focus from anything else on that. Unit compositions: We see terran mostly to opt for bio to enable 1. + 2. and zerg prefably play that part of it's untis can escape 1. + 2, which is ling/bling/muta. Metagames: Protoss mainly relying on gimmicky units to harrass with the fewest amount of risk and other than that stay on pure def until lategame/tech advantage. Implementation of units: Circle around that issue, trying to circumvent the 1. + 2. Balance design: We get mass armour ultalisks, and whatever else to balance that mechanic, trying to circumvent 1. + 2. Overall: The whole game circles around that issue, which is about fulfilling low end needs only (if you look at it in a pyramid). As these solutions however are by default not capable of fixing the core issue, the game is doomed to continue to stay in this vicious circle and cannot step ahead in order to refine other things higher up in that pyramid. Even if stuff up in this pyramid is perfectly designed and balanced, this fragile foundation of unit interactions with bio nullify a good amount of that and cause player drop. The right thing to do is not to adapt the whole game on bio vs. x interactions but to alter bio. I do agree in part, but I think the problem is that bio is and has been so central to these matchups that changing bio, which is like changing warpgate for Protoss is extremely hard to do. I agree that much of the game is balanced around bio, and so changing bio would be an extremely difficult task to do, as you would have to change pretty much anything that interacts with bio. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
Adept Balance update It likely wont be enough but it is a step in the right direction. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
Came here to write my reply to your post, but seeing as Blizzard has gone ahead with the Adept nerf already, it seems a moot point. Regardless, you made good points and presented them well. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 18 2017 05:00 pvsnp wrote: @FrkFrJss Came here to write my reply to your post, but seeing as Blizzard has gone ahead with the Adept nerf already, it seems a moot point. Regardless, you made good points and made them well. I guess we'll see how the matchup goes from here in the GSL, SSL, VSL and to a lesser extent, WCS Austin. I don't think it will make as much of a difference foreigner matchups because they're not as good as their Korean counterparts, and the 10 point health nerf changes them more in the Terran matchup than the Zerg matchup. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
What's weird is that bio isn't even that good an example. It moves at a pretty normal speed most of the time; even stimmed it's not that fast, and boosted medivacs are fast but only temporarily and with a load/unload time to worry about. A muta flock is a much better example of a mobile, powerful army that can easily retreat from a bad engagement or chase down a retreating army. Mutas even seem more broken, since they can all stack on top of each other to become crazy insanely effective against anything without AoE. But mutas aren't broken, even if the game has had to balance around them quite a lot in the past (I'd argue mutas are directly responsible for the existence of both phoenixes and widow mines). By the same token, bio is not broken just because it's mobile. | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On April 18 2017 06:10 ChristianS wrote: That quality of an army being able to retreat or give chase easily? There's a term for it: map control. And it's a well-established dynamic that faster, weaker armies can seize map control because the opposing army won't be able to chase or retreat freely. What's weird is that bio isn't even that good an example. It moves at a pretty normal speed most of the time; even stimmed it's not that fast, and boosted medivacs are fast but only temporarily and with a load/unload time to worry about. A muta flock is a much better example of a mobile, powerful army that can easily retreat from a bad engagement or chase down a retreating army. Mutas even seem more broken, since they can all stack on top of each other to become crazy insanely effective against anything without AoE. But mutas aren't broken, even if the game has had to balance around them quite a lot in the past (I'd argue mutas are directly responsible for the existence of both phoenixes and widow mines). By the same token, bio is not broken just because it's mobile. I feel like that's because mutas are (relatively) frail and easy to knock them out of a fight (by bruising a bunch) and cause them to retreat or you'll end up throwing away 1k/1k. That's part of the reason the fast muta regen was introduced, because otherwise you'd get a bunch of mutas bruised, and then they'd have to sit off in a corner for 2 minutes while they regained their HP back. I also 100% agree that phoenix exist because of mutas (just like corsairs exist because of mutas) - and mines in general were designed to be a relatively good counter to massable units (lings, zealots, mutas). | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
That regeneration speed is a direct consequence not to mines, but to the frequency of attacks coming in by terran, which pace is defined by bio. Mutas had to regen up inbetween these attack waves in order to keep the zerg in game with this playstyle. It is not the mines that define the interval of terran attacks majorly. Of course mines added to that. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On April 18 2017 04:05 MockHamill wrote: Blizzard decided to go ahead with the 10 hit point nerf to Adepts: Adept Balance update It likely wont be enough but it is a step in the right direction. Interesting. We'll see what happens with the win rates. | ||
|
omop
45 Posts
| ||
| ||
