|
On June 27 2017 19:20 Beliskner wrote:Not everyone is completely happy with every direction or change blizzard makes but you could at least open your eyes to reality Show nested quote +the majority of people in this forum is actually happy with Blizzard and hates on people who are not. And you say that but...how is it then that 90% of these threads is people just whining about how blizzard hasn't nerfed their personally most hated unit yet.
Well, first off, thank you for making my point. Secondly, I already presented my view on why 90% of all threads are balance whine: It is because people actually liked how WoL and HotS worked, and are yet to comprehend that LotV is subtly essentially different. The game is to end quickly. This means there are supposed to be many things that are accessible early in the game and (always) have a high chance of tilting a match decisively one way or the other. However, as a player with a WoL/HotS backgorund, one perceives such things as OP. People are looking to solve problems: Player A does X so player B hast to do Y to keep the game going. LotV is not about keeping the game going. It's about the game ending quickly. When Player A actually does X the game is over. The time windows where you can actually react to something you see are stupidly small in LotV, compared to WoL and HotS.
|
On June 27 2017 17:50 QuinnTheEskimo wrote:
This entire LOTV thing started out with P being (called) OP. Instead of making P reasonable, Zerg was buffed into entirely new spheres, while pushing T further and further into the gimmickiest of gameplays imagineable. To round things off, we get the current map pool.
As far as I am concerned, I (finally) managed to adapt to all these proceedings and my mmr is higher than ever before, which gives me a more relaxed view on the game. Still, I don't like it. Concidering everything I remember that Blizz said about design goals for SC2, they actually reached those. To summarize it: The game is supposed to be over in a heartbeat, as soon as a player mined enough gas to have 16 3/3/3 carriers out on the map. The reasoning is: the game is taking too long. It is not supposed to go back and forth. It's supposed to be over quickly, so that more games can be played and tournaments may stick to schedules more reliably. If WoL and HotS were like chess, they added a rule for LotV that check is immediately mate, without the chance for the other player to react.
Before, in "normal" games, hardly anything would happen before 7-8 minutes into the game. Today, we have "normal" games that are de facto over after 7-8 minutes into the game. While many people may call this more dynamic and thus desireable, others don't (hello viewing figures and active players count).
This is nothing that is reflected in win rates. When people talk about balance here, they often talk about being able to react to something, in order to keep going and still have a chance at winning the particular match. This is not how SC2 works anymore. You are supposed to lose quickly, but win the next match just as quickly, in order to have a balanced win rate and go into an exciting decider coin flip^W^W match, in your BO3 series.
You summarize perfectly the main reasons I stopped playing this game, thank you so much :D
|
On June 27 2017 13:23 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 11:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 27 2017 10:38 pvsnp wrote:On June 27 2017 10:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 27 2017 10:06 pvsnp wrote:On June 27 2017 08:51 Corvuuss wrote:On June 27 2017 08:16 Kafka777 wrote:the game is great. S2 is one of the best GSL seasons i've seen. Lots of Terrans in S1 and S2 of the GSL so its not like the game is totally imbalanced against Terran. Its not like playing Terran is a lost cause the way you characterize it. Indeed, its quite the opposite. The game is balanced in favor of Terran for the last 12 months. Only the balance team knows why. Perhaps it is because there are few good foreign Terrans? Its some political issue, as this imbalance is fairly obvious. In every tournament they have to make terrans eliminate each other so its less obvious. This sounds like a conspiracy theory like they give Serral a worse computer to animate the NA scene or something Sounds like it because it basically is. The idea that the balance team is somehow conspiring to keep Terran OP is close to avilo levels of delusional (except opposite in viewpoint). Whether it be avilo perennially whining that a perfectly viable style is somehow UP, or people like this who imagine a shadowy cabal that plots around the clock to ruin specifically their race and their race alone (for teh evulz, cuz why not) just showcases that there's lunatics wherever you go. Balance is fine. Not perfect or anywhere close to perfect, but fine nonetheless. ZvP with hydra/ling/bane is the biggest issue atm, and presumably the reason for the maps being adjusted. If hydra/ling/bane continues to be a problem, further adjustments will be made accordingly. Whiners will whine, it's what they do. In the meantime, sane players will enjoy playing. But this doesn't have to be about balance. It can be just about "design"/"fun" or whatever you wanna call it. Just because something is balanced doesn't mean it is fine. Nobody would want to play starcraft if it was only tvt and the only two units you could build were scvs and marines. That game would quite obviously suck, even if it was 100% balanced. The same can be applied to the current (or any) state of the game. Arguing from a balance pov is simply irrelevant as long as the balance is "good enough" (obviously you have to define that part) What the conversation should be about is design and what it means for the gameplay (unit interactions, strategic diversity, things like that) At the end of the day this is subjective ofc, but there are patterns and design philosophies which "work better" than others. The problem with arguing design and enjoyability is that, for a great many people, enjoying a game is in large part connected to victory. Enjoying is also in large part connected to the idea that a victory was justly deserved, as a direct result of superior effort or skill on behalf of the victor (this is ofc why people hate cheese, WMs, amove units, etc). Balance is a (mostly) objective issue, defined by winrates and hard numbers, and thus inherently easier (though far from easy) to address and improve than a completely subjective and often polarized (winner vs loser) experience that is enjoyment. Sure, but we play games to have this experience, not because we know it is balanced. I would even say that the actual balance doesn't matter at all, the perceived one is what matters and that is oftentimes just a design question. Games are "art" and it is subjective, sure. But as i said, there absolutely are certain patterns and philosophies we can apply to get a "better" product. In general for a fun game with no competition involving money percieved balance is way better, but if there is money involved (which in sc2 there is) real balance is the only tollerable way to go.
Well i want the game to be "balanced enough", and i think it most of the time is just that. I think getting to that state is doable no matter what the actual design of the game dictates though. So i am not too concerned to talk about balance every community update, i think that discussion is not interesting at all. What happens here is simply that some strategies/unit compositions are strong and blizzard has to decide if other races/players will likely find a startegy against it or not.
I think the more interesting question is if playing the game with these strategies is fun/enjoyable to watch/play.
An example i often used in the past: Forcefields were maybe balanced, but it was absolutely horrible to play against (arguably also to play) and to watch. I am sure we will find some guy who disagrees with this, but i also think it isn't that out there to state that forcefields are "bad for the game" in general. I won't reiterate all the reasons for this, this was done over and over again in the past.
So yeah, i think arguing about the game mechanics, unit interactions, general pace of the game, etc is way more important than yelling "mech op/up" in every thread. We should first talk about what mech really means, why we want it, how it should work, etc. Just imagine the warhound would be in the game right now and it was balanced. It still wouldn't be "mech play" people actually want to see. That's where the disussion has to take place (i simply used mech as an example here, this is applicable for anything really)
|
Mech means "mmh i want to sleep but i also want to play" this is the best compromise
|
On June 27 2017 20:25 QuinnTheEskimo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 19:20 Beliskner wrote:Not everyone is completely happy with every direction or change blizzard makes but you could at least open your eyes to reality the majority of people in this forum is actually happy with Blizzard and hates on people who are not. And you say that but...how is it then that 90% of these threads is people just whining about how blizzard hasn't nerfed their personally most hated unit yet. Well, first off, thank you for making my point. Secondly, I already presented my view on why 90% of all threads are balance whine: It is because people actually liked how WoL and HotS worked, and are yet to comprehend that LotV is subtly essentially different. The game is to end quickly. This means there are supposed to be many things that are accessible early in the game and (always) have a high chance of tilting a match decisively one way or the other. However, as a player with a WoL/HotS backgorund, one perceives such things as OP. People are looking to solve problems: Player A does X so player B hast to do Y to keep the game going. LotV is not about keeping the game going. It's about the game ending quickly. When Player A actually does X the game is over. The time windows where you can actually react to something you see are stupidly small in LotV, compared to WoL and HotS.
i've said this before, its like LotV is more like a C&C game than a Starcraft game when it comes to pace. i like it. but i can see why people who played Brood War, WoL, and HotS for 10+ years might not like it.
Blizzard went through that big process of speeding up everything before LotV was released during a very critical beta period. Blizz sorta made up their mind and during the "big reset" after BlizzCon 2016 decided to stick with that economy, pacing etc.
So Blizz has been taking in LotV feedback for 2+ years has never gone back down the "slow the game down" roadway. They seem 100% set on it in the fact of changing many other things in the game.
|
I don't get the point of changing Blood Boil. Any Zerg or Protoss is vetoing the map in a tournament 100% lol
|
On June 27 2017 23:28 RPR_Tempest wrote:
I don't get the point of changing Blood Boil. Any Zerg or Protoss is vetoing the map in a tournament 100% lol
Balance for bo7.
|
On June 27 2017 17:50 QuinnTheEskimo wrote:
This entire LOTV thing started out with P being (called) OP. Instead of making P reasonable, Zerg was buffed into entirely new spheres, while pushing T further and further into the gimmickiest of gameplays imagineable. To round things off, we get the current map pool.
As far as I am concerned, I (finally) managed to adapt to all these proceedings and my mmr is higher than ever before, which gives me a more relaxed view on the game. Still, I don't like it. Concidering everything I remember that Blizz said about design goals for SC2, they actually reached those. To summarize it: The game is supposed to be over in a heartbeat, as soon as a player mined enough gas to have 16 3/3/3 carriers out on the map. The reasoning is: the game is taking too long. It is not supposed to go back and forth. It's supposed to be over quickly, so that more games can be played and tournaments may stick to schedules more reliably. If WoL and HotS were like chess, they added a rule for LotV that check is immediately mate, without the chance for the other player to react.
Before, in "normal" games, hardly anything would happen before 7-8 minutes into the game. Today, we have "normal" games that are de facto over after 7-8 minutes into the game. While many people may call this more dynamic and thus desireable, others don't (hello viewing figures and active players count).
This is nothing that is reflected in win rates. When people talk about balance here, they often talk about being able to react to something, in order to keep going and still have a chance at winning the particular match. This is not how SC2 works anymore. You are supposed to lose quickly, but win the next match just as quickly, in order to have a balanced win rate and go into an exciting decider coin flip^W^W match, in your BO3 series.
no no no, it's all happenin because RTS games are dying, I swear! LOTV is perfect, just listen to those casters and streamers! :^)
|
It's right too, dont be silly
|
On June 28 2017 00:26 ihatevideogames wrote:
no no no, it's all happenin because RTS games are dying, I swear! LOTV is perfect, just listen to those casters and streamers! :^)
RTS games are growing by huge amounts. C&C4 came out at teh same time as SC2 in 2010 an its bigger than Dota2 and Overwatch combined. i'm prolly switching to C&C4 because EA supports the #1 RTS franchise of all time ( C&C ) way better than Blizzard supports SC2 and the Starcraft franchise.
|
This is nothing that is reflected in win rates. When people talk about balance here, they often talk about being able to react to something, in order to keep going and still have a chance at winning the particular match. This is not how SC2 works anymore. You are supposed to lose quickly, but win the next match just as quickly, in order to have a balanced win rate and go into an exciting decider coin flip^W^W match, in your BO3 series.
The problem is all race aren't equal :
T is ahead of P or Z, he just cross the map and crush the other.
Z is behind : he is dead, totally can't recover.
T can tradebase, get a good drop/liberator and come back while he was behind, his army is cheap, gas light, but still really powerful, and mule give him good boost even if he has lost a lot of SCV, he can turtle at home with liberator/tanks, and while the P/Z try to attack, a sngle can kill an entire base...
Your ahead as Zerg, well you can't just cross the map right now, you need to get a tech that counters the other, and do a good timing attack (that can fail, and you finally lose the game).
Also the build are kind of win-win vs T :
You get rax reapers, you don't kill zerg, are you behind ? not at all, you can deny creep, get map control, your eco is about the same of Zerg (watch Soo vs gumiho).
Same oracle, unscouted, you kill tons of drones, and even with spores, oracle has great utility, can still kill drones and regenerate its shield.
Of course, if you play perfectly the race is really strong, but still, perfectly played terran is better, but no one play perfectly even the pro, but T can do mistakes and correct them eventually, Zerg can't, and that's why i don't see them winning other tournament in the future.
Actually the best Zerg, Life wasn't the player that never make mistakes, but the one who just make bet everygame, and is so good at mind game, and he wins more than he loses, and i think it's the only competitive way to play zerg now : don't try to play perfectly, just surprise the other or fail trying.
|
i was very skeptical that Blizzard could find unique roles for all the units in LotV because so many new units got added from WoL. However, 1+ years into LotV. i think they've done a really nice job.
these fucking blizzard guys are geniuses.
|
I still think that ZvP lategame is too P favored and that the Lurker is not a useful unit in most situations because the Tempest has such long range.
Any chance we can indirectly buff the lurker by making it so the tempest cannot attack burrowed units?
Maybe reduce neural range to compensate?
|
On June 28 2017 02:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i was very skeptical that Blizzard could find unique roles for all the units in LotV because so many new units got added from WoL. However, 1+ years into LotV. i think they've done a really nice job.
these fucking blizzard guys are geniuses.
Liberator unique? Nope, overlaps with Thors and Siege Tanks, just does a better job than the latter. Lurker unique? Nope, just added that unit after years of community outcry for having that iconic unit in SC2, as well. Adept kinda is unique with it's ability, but still merely replaced Zealots, so... Yeah, damn, they're total geniuses.
|
When legacy came out, the balance update video talks about the benefits of "microing" the units like that hilarious image of 3 marines killing a lurker or that 3 inmortals alone pushing on 5 tanks alone.
Finally, zerg meta is all about 1-a compos like bane + hit and push/run hydras , or terran, ven more funny: Plant tank liberator mine with the scan giving full knowledge of the army, and bait, you even dont need to 1a. Unsiege - siege...
That is why many protosses left playing: it seems that your race needs massive scout, be aware of drops and one hundred timmings and must use 20 spells to stop an army going 1-a without any warranty that it will work. The fact is that all Pvz must end on Carriers or you will die.
And of course the community: Remember David Kim talking about the 3.8 patch on DH Montreal ?
Yeah i know, BattleCruisers. Didn`t noticed.
|
On June 28 2017 02:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 00:26 ihatevideogames wrote:
no no no, it's all happenin because RTS games are dying, I swear! LOTV is perfect, just listen to those casters and streamers! :^) RTS games are growing by huge amounts. C&C4 came out at teh same time as SC2 in 2010 an its bigger than Dota2 and Overwatch combined. i'm prolly switching to C&C4 because EA supports the #1 RTS franchise of all time ( C&C ) way better than Blizzard supports SC2 and the Starcraft franchise.
What world are you living in where Command and Conquer is doing better than Dota 2 and Overwatch?
|
On June 28 2017 02:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 00:26 ihatevideogames wrote:
no no no, it's all happenin because RTS games are dying, I swear! LOTV is perfect, just listen to those casters and streamers! :^) RTS games are growing by huge amounts. C&C4 came out at teh same time as SC2 in 2010 an its bigger than Dota2 and Overwatch combined. i'm prolly switching to C&C4 because EA supports the #1 RTS franchise of all time ( C&C ) way better than Blizzard supports SC2 and the Starcraft franchise.
C&C4 is obviously the most popular game, let alone RTS.
On a more serious note, they should slow Swarm Hosts down before they ruin an entire season of WCS/GSL/etc, their move speed is ridiculous.
|
On June 28 2017 00:06 leublix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 23:28 RPR_Tempest wrote:
I don't get the point of changing Blood Boil. Any Zerg or Protoss is vetoing the map in a tournament 100% lol Balance for bo7.
Exactly Pig made a Video about the map pool, but essentially having a 16 mineral patch gold that's fairly straight forward for Zerg to hold makes it so that they can do some crushing 3 base timings against Protoss.
|
On June 28 2017 03:14 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 02:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i was very skeptical that Blizzard could find unique roles for all the units in LotV because so many new units got added from WoL. However, 1+ years into LotV. i think they've done a really nice job.
these fucking blizzard guys are geniuses. Liberator unique? Nope, overlaps with Thors and Siege Tanks, just does a better job than the latter. Lurker unique? Nope, just added that unit after years of community outcry for having that iconic unit in SC2, as well. Adept kinda is unique with it's ability, but still merely replaced Zealots, so... Yeah, damn, they're total geniuses.
Except not realy, liberator and tank both control space but liberator is a unit you want against smaller numbers of powerfull units like ultras or adepts where as the tank is better against large numbers of weeker units like lings and roaches.further liberator can be used as a harasment unit and can reposition much faster. It's like comparing the maurador and the marine and saying meh same unit both shoot when actually mauraders and marines have fairly diffrent and important roles in the bio composition. Both units see play but in diffrent situations enough so that they clearly have diffrent strengths and weaknesses.
Liberator used to overlap with Thor but with the nerfs to lib anti air the Thor now realy outshine the lib when it comes to air splash dmg, I admit it used to not be this way till bliz fixed it. Also thors are super tank ground units that can soak banelings in fights, I don't know about you but I've yet to see lib tank banelings hits for my bio.
The lurker is a Zerg space control siege unit, it overlaps with the tank but Zerg can't build tanks so I don't really see your point (if it's viable is another question) I guess you could argue so is the swarm host but the swarmhosts can't lock down a position like the lurker.
as for the zealot I think it's less about overlap with the adept and more that the adept Is just a better unit than the zelot in many situations. Since it's ranged, does similar dps vs light units, and has a powerfull ability without any research attached, mabey with charge cost change the zelot will someday find a spot in the Protoss kit.
|
On June 28 2017 04:49 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 03:14 Creager wrote:On June 28 2017 02:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i was very skeptical that Blizzard could find unique roles for all the units in LotV because so many new units got added from WoL. However, 1+ years into LotV. i think they've done a really nice job.
these fucking blizzard guys are geniuses. Liberator unique? Nope, overlaps with Thors and Siege Tanks, just does a better job than the latter. Lurker unique? Nope, just added that unit after years of community outcry for having that iconic unit in SC2, as well. Adept kinda is unique with it's ability, but still merely replaced Zealots, so... Yeah, damn, they're total geniuses. Except not realy, liberator and tank both control space but liberator is a unit you want against smaller numbers of powerfull units like ultras or adepts where as the tank is better against large numbers of weeker units like lings and roaches.further liberator can be used as a harasment unit and can reposition much faster. It's like comparing the maurador and the marine and saying meh same unit both shoot when actually mauraders and marines have fairly diffrent and important roles in the bio composition. The lurker is a Zerg space control siege unit, it overlaps with the tank but Zerg can't build tanks so I don't really see your point (if it's viable is another question) I guess you could argue so is the swarm host but the swarmhosts can't lock down a position like the lurker. as for the zealot I think it's less about overlap with the adept and more that the adept Is just a better unit than the zelot in many situations. Since it's ranged, does similar dps vs light units, and has a powerfull ability without any research attached, mabey with charge cost change the zelot will someday find a spot in the Protoss kit.
You apparently didn't understand my post, I was referring to his point which implies that all new units in LotV have unique roles they fit into, which, to a certain extend, is not the case, since they at some point all overlap(ped) with already existing units, merely replacing them since they work out better instead of being a true and unique addition to the arsenal.
What you say about Siege Tanks and Liberators is certainly right, they do fulfill different purposes, but in reality players build MMM and one additional unit for siege or splash damage, namely Tanks, Widow Mines or Liberators, they don't build all of those constantly, because they just back up the core army. In WoL it was Bio/Tank, in HotS Tank got replaced by the Widow Mine and in LotV it's Liberators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
