EPTso i don't think u'll ever see Blizzard declare a game to be in an optimum state just based on game results statistics.
StarCraft II Multiplayer - Major Design Changes - Page 37
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17973 Posts
so i don't think u'll ever see Blizzard declare a game to be in an optimum state just based on game results statistics. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On September 06 2017 10:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Jeff Kaplan talked about how balanced stats represented 1 of 3 pillars they base their balance decisions on. 1 other pillar was.. does the balance change result in fun game play. I'm not sure what the other pillar was. so i don't think u'll ever see Blizzard declare a game to be in an optimum state just based on game results statistics. The third pillar has to be something which denies the second pillar because some of the things in sc2 are not all that fun unit interaction wise. | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
Any thoughts on what type of rapid fire machine gun would best fit on the Thor arms as a buff? | ||
|
DBooN
Germany2727 Posts
I feel like Oracles, Warpprism and Banelings could use some changes. Also I doubt being able to burrow faster will help Lurkers very much when Immortals can just walk over burrowed Lurkers. The most confusing change though is wanting to buff Zerg ground to air by making fungle not hit air and buffing parasitic bomb?! Also not sure why Protoss need to be able to a-move HTs, they were already the only thing they had to control in a mass air + HT composition. If they manage to balance the early-midgame so that Zerg doesnt overrun Protoss without overcharge I can imagine even more ugly looking lategame PvZ since the new infestor ability also doesnt really seem to help against that. Overall the Zerg changes seem underwhelming, just nerfs and a Lurker "rework" that still leaves the unit useless in most situations. | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:39 xTJx wrote: Sure dude, because game quality doesn't matter, let protoss mass their 1 unit because the winrate is not at 50%. As we know players are all the same and what that matters are statistics, so by your own logic Terran is op vs Zerg right now because there's a 54% winrate, even when 3 zergs in GSL were foreigners. If protoss are being forced to mass one unit and still aren't coming close to a fair winrate, then the solution is to buff other protoss units, not to nerf the one they're using. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
I dont think its to wild of a change, if you think about it zerg get spores at the spawning pool, and terran get bunkers at the barracks. As for cheeses I dont think it would be to much of a difference, maybe protoss could bring 1-2 zealots with their cannon rush but I'm sure it would still be holdable with proper execution, it would also probably be healthy for the game if protoss could threaten zerg with early game cheese to some extent again. the more things the zerg has to account for the less greedy they can be, so having more cheeses will help to slow down the big allins in the midgame that will be much harder to stop with the removal of msc. as a plus this would be a nerf to mine harass so maybe, the change to the mine would be unnecessary, since protoss could have access to building based detection at the gateway, but once again they would either need to blindly sink 300 minerals to stop it or scout correctly. Also it would help address the fears protoss players have that stargate will be dominant in pvp, being able to throw down a cannon as soon as you scout the stargate could help players go robo or twilight instead. | ||
|
Kerdinand
Germany113 Posts
On September 07 2017 02:44 washikie wrote: I had an idea for a possible buff to protoss early game, let them build cannons if they have a gateway. one reason you don't see early canons right now is that they are not good enough to justify the investment in a forge (unless your cannon rushing) due to the threat of units that deal well with them like ravagers. If you move the tech requirement to the gateway protoss can decide to get cannons at any point along their natural build path. This combined with the shield regen would help them hold of allins but unlike the ms core it would require proper scouting and investment to stop attacks, meaning that players who have not scouted wont have defenses up. I dont think its to wild of a change, if you think about it zerg get spores at the spawning pool, and terran get bunkers at the barracks. As for cheeses I dont think it would be to much of a difference, maybe protoss could bring 1-2 zealots with their cannon rush but I'm sure it would still be holdable with proper execution, it would also probably be healthy for the game if protoss could threaten zerg with early game cheese to some extent again. the more things the zerg has to account for the less greedy they can be, so having more cheeses will help to slow down the big allins in the midgame that will be much harder to stop with the removal of msc. as a plus this would be a nerf to mine harass so maybe, the change to the mine would be unnecessary, since protoss could have access to building based detection at the gateway, but once again they would either need to blindly sink 300 minerals to stop it or scout correctly. Cannons at the gateway just make it way to easy to transition out of the cannon rush if it fails to do game-ending damage. If you are fine with cannon-rush openings being as common as reaper openings its OK I guess, but otherwise I'd prefer to have the cannon at the cybercore - which is a nerf to the infamous cannon rush and a buff to general protoss early game at the same time. | ||
|
DSh1
292 Posts
Theoretically you should always have detection, but if you skip it you will get ahead economically unless you die. So not a fan of that idea. | ||
|
seopthi
401 Posts
| ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
But i'm not sure about the effectiveness, canon are still the worst Static D to me. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On September 07 2017 02:57 Kerdinand wrote: Cannons at the gateway just make it way to easy to transition out of the cannon rush if it fails to do game-ending damage. If you are fine with cannon-rush openings being as common as reaper openings its OK I guess, but otherwise I'd prefer to have the cannon at the cybercore - which is a nerf to the infamous cannon rush and a buff to general protoss early game at the same time. that would also be reasonable, although personally I would see no problem with protoss cannoning you than trying to transition, its not like canon rushes are cheep, it can sometimes cost 500+minerals to do and afterwards they have to still worry about counter allins with units that out range the cannons or melt them. given that pros (excluding Has) don't use the strategy at all I don't think a small buff would change to much. I mean i've lost to it a few times in masters I admit but that's just because I made execution mistakes that higher level players just don't make. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17973 Posts
On September 07 2017 03:28 seopthi wrote: If Cannons' requirement was a Gateway instead of a Forge, what about making canons unable to attack buildings? I think it'd be nice if they were weakened, but also cheaper. that sounds like a cool idea to screw around with and see how well it works | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
On September 06 2017 18:44 Jumbled wrote: If protoss are being forced to mass one unit and still aren't coming close to a fair winrate, then the solution is to buff other protoss units, not to nerf the one they're using. I feel like arguing with 10 year old kids. Protoss is not being forced into mass oracle, and protoss is not underperforming. All i'm saying is that mass oracle is as dumb as mass adept used to be. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8255 Posts
| ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On September 07 2017 10:04 xTJx wrote: I feel like arguing with 10 year old kids. Probably just a sign that you're slow on the uptake. The discussion was in the context of Protoss underperforming heavily in PvZ, and how that should affect the changes Blizzard's looking at. There'll always be idiots yelling "An Oracle killed me! Nerf! Nerf!", but that kind of kneejerk reaction has no relevance to actual balance. The point is that we know there are other areas of Protoss tech likely to require buffs - the whole point of removing MSC was so that gateway units could be improved to compensate, after all - and it makes sense to look at how compositions will change if those buffs are implemented. | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
On September 07 2017 12:52 Jumbled wrote: Probably just a sign that you're slow on the uptake. The discussion was in the context of Protoss underperforming heavily in PvZ, and how that should affect the changes Blizzard's looking at. There'll always be idiots yelling "An Oracle killed me! Nerf! Nerf!", but that kind of kneejerk reaction has no relevance to actual balance. The point is that we know there are other areas of Protoss tech likely to require buffs - the whole point of removing MSC was so that gateway units could be improved to compensate, after all - and it makes sense to look at how compositions will change if those buffs are implemented. No, it's just you people that translate "mass oracle is a dumb strategy and bad for the game" to "i lose to mass oracle." I'm not talking about race balance, i'm not talking about winrates, i'm not talking about the other changes, i'm talking about mass oracle and zerg's tools to deal with it, but you guys can't think outside the balance whine, same thing when people pointed that mass reapers were dumb, mass adepts were dumb, etc. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20759015870 Hey everyone, We wanted to check in to let you know that the testing is on-going and that we greatly appreciate your feedback and discussions. In the meantime, a member from the multiplayer balance team will provide an update at WCS Montreal before the grand finals. We are excited about WCS Montreal and look forward to the matches! | ||
|
TrainingDay
4 Posts
I can understand that a lot of players / pro players do not understand this idea, because after all we are there to play with the rules we were given, not to try to transgress them. But the main argument of Blizzard for the 12 collectors was that it would energize the game, and make it more alive for the viewers. Since we have lost more than 60% of our viewers, most people do not raise the game again, the pro players games are no better than before. We have not won anything with this change, and now that everybody plays on 12, the community will always be divided to go back to 6, because many players give their opinion without ever taking the time to replay on 6 collectors, until recover the sensations of play, to judge the difference between the 2. The best argument being: The game is too slow on 6 collectors. Which is wrong. Another argument is: The game is easier on 6 collectors, which is false, the game requires more mechanics but less precisions. On 6 collectors, a depot that must be placed at 21, can only be placed at 21, if you put it to 20, you'll have 2 less marines, if you put it at 23 you will be supply bock at 27. So the game is no easier in 6 collectors, it is deeper, more precise, and low cost units are more important at the beginning. I do not understand how the team that manages the balancing can not see it, the 12 collectors is a mistake, of course that going back to 6 will create a conflict with some players, but how many will come back? how many will understand over time that 6 collectors is much better than 12? It's sad, sad to see that the people who created the game do not question themselves. Blizzard will make all the changes of the world, if we stay in 12 collectors, no player will return on the game, no caster will make a tutorial, it shows, nobody plays on the server test, because the problem of the game is in its dynamics more than in its balancing. | ||
|
AkashSky
United States257 Posts
On September 09 2017 06:25 TrainingDay wrote: The most important change that Blizzard should make is to replay the game on 6 collectors. I can understand that a lot of players / pro players do not understand this idea, because after all we are there to play with the rules we were given, not to try to transgress them. But the main argument of Blizzard for the 12 collectors was that it would energize the game, and make it more alive for the viewers. Since we have lost more than 60% of our viewers, most people do not raise the game again, the pro players games are no better than before. We have not won anything with this change, and now that everybody plays on 12, the community will always be divided to go back to 6, because many players give their opinion without ever taking the time to replay on 6 collectors, until recover the sensations of play, to judge the difference between the 2. The best argument being: The game is too slow on 6 collectors. Which is wrong. Another argument is: The game is easier on 6 collectors, which is false, the game requires more mechanics but less precisions. On 6 collectors, a depot that must be placed at 21, can only be placed at 21, if you put it to 20, you'll have 2 less marines, if you put it at 23 you will be supply bock at 27. So the game is no easier in 6 collectors, it is deeper, more precise, and low cost units are more important at the beginning. I do not understand how the team that manages the balancing can not see it, the 12 collectors is a mistake, of course that going back to 6 will create a conflict with some players, but how many will come back? how many will understand over time that 6 collectors is much better than 12? It's sad, sad to see that the people who created the game do not question themselves. Blizzard will make all the changes of the world, if we stay in 12 collectors, no player will return on the game, no caster will make a tutorial, it shows, nobody plays on the server test, because the problem of the game is in its dynamics more than in its balancing. I agree the game would be more deep with 6 workers, it would also add back mineral stacking to the game - which allows you to mine from the closer mineral patches to get ~50 extra minerals. In addition, it would open up some cheese play, like proxy 2 gates. | ||
|
Siegetank_Dieter1
117 Posts
On September 09 2017 06:25 TrainingDay wrote: The most important change that Blizzard should make is to replay the game on 6 collectors. I can understand that a lot of players / pro players do not understand this idea, because after all we are there to play with the rules we were given, not to try to transgress them. But the main argument of Blizzard for the 12 collectors was that it would energize the game, and make it more alive for the viewers. Since we have lost more than 60% of our viewers, most people do not raise the game again, the pro players games are no better than before. We have not won anything with this change, and now that everybody plays on 12, the community will always be divided to go back to 6, because many players give their opinion without ever taking the time to replay on 6 collectors, until recover the sensations of play, to judge the difference between the 2. The best argument being: The game is too slow on 6 collectors. Which is wrong. Another argument is: The game is easier on 6 collectors, which is false, the game requires more mechanics but less precisions. On 6 collectors, a depot that must be placed at 21, can only be placed at 21, if you put it to 20, you'll have 2 less marines, if you put it at 23 you will be supply bock at 27. So the game is no easier in 6 collectors, it is deeper, more precise, and low cost units are more important at the beginning. I do not understand how the team that manages the balancing can not see it, the 12 collectors is a mistake, of course that going back to 6 will create a conflict with some players, but how many will come back? how many will understand over time that 6 collectors is much better than 12? It's sad, sad to see that the people who created the game do not question themselves. Blizzard will make all the changes of the world, if we stay in 12 collectors, no player will return on the game, no caster will make a tutorial, it shows, nobody plays on the server test, because the problem of the game is in its dynamics more than in its balancing. 100% agree.... I probably made thousands of posts about this topic, but you always hear the same nonsense like "too slow, boring, etc..." | ||
| ||
