|
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
|
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Oh look, an intelligent, well-reasoned, rational comment that supports its own claims with sound logic. No doubt it will soon be buried under the torrent of balance whine oneliners after nary a reply.
Seriously though, while I do agree with a lot of what you brought up here, it would probably be easier for Blizzard to create a brand-new RTS than actually fix all the ingrained design problems in SC2. The big design patches at the end of every year have been making progress in that regard (refer to the MSC) but it's a slow, gradual, improvement fraught with its own problems. Trying to juggle design problems with the continual need to maintain a reasonably-balanced game is a difficult if not impossible task, especially for a game like SC2 that, quite frankly, probably isn't worth that much in the way of time/effort/money for Blizzard.
And of course that's without bringing up how much of what you called "frustrating mechanics and gimmicks" is integral to race design and diversity in the first place. Warpgate is the archtypal example. It makes a mockery of the cardinal RTS principle of defender's advantage, but after 8 years of Protoss relying on it, removing it and balancing around Gateways would be a nightmare for the balance team, the progamers, and probably the viewers as well. And even if, by some miracle, warpgate was successfully removed and Protoss rebalanced around that, might we just be left with a shinier, beefier, gold-plated-alien version of Terran?
Does SC2 have too many frustrating gimmicks? Yes, most certainly. But sometimes it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie.
|
On April 21 2018 06:41 aish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote:
I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play. have you considered getting better? have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use? have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours? your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta.
My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion.
You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others.
LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity.
In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive.
Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people!
|
I am very glad, that Blizzard realized, that TvP is broken because P can tech up way too quickly. IMO this is what will lead to a good solution. Talking about individual units was never going to get us anywhere. However, I did play P during WOL and HOTS, so I know the alternative to fast P teching, and I didn't particularly like it either. Sometimes I think P is so broken b/c of the fast LOTV eco, but that also doesn't get me anywhere.
TvZ may be in a good spot by some balance metrics, but there still is something that bothers me very much: Hydras are way too good! They are not necessarily OP in direct battles, but on the whole, they are astonishingly cost efficient against Bio, Mech and Air. This versatility is what really bothers me. It makes the game dull to play and watch. I can see this as a low prio problem, because on paper it looks sort of ok balance wise. I'd still call this a problem.
I do not like Blizzard looking at the Liberator as a means to change game balance. They had to nerf it like 3 times to give it a decent spot in the game. Buffing the Liberator is definetly a way to increase T win rate, we've been there, but IMO that would be the same mistake as when they put the Hydra in its current position.
Still, after like 3 months of nothing, at least they could have thrown out a change or two to just see what happens. There is long road up ahead and they are hardly bothering to set one foot before the other.
Protoss can tech way too quickly at any rate and Z can reach Hydras quite conveniently. Cut the research time for stim by 50%. While this change doesn't affect unit interactions at all, it can change build orders a lot and I think that alone can solve most of any problems where T is involved. It might even put an end to this cyclone nonsense in TvT
|
On April 22 2018 05:49 pvsnp wrote:
Oh look, an intelligent, well-reasoned, rational comment that supports its own claims with sound logic. No doubt it will soon be buried under the torrent of balance whine oneliners after nary a reply.
Seriously though, while I do agree with a lot of what you brought up here, it would probably be easier for Blizzard to create a brand-new RTS than actually fix all the ingrained design problems in SC2. The big design patches at the end of every year have been making progress in that regard (refer to the MSC) but it's a slow, gradual, improvement fraught with its own problems. Trying to juggle design problems with the continual need to maintain a reasonably-balanced game is a difficult if not impossible task, especially for a game like SC2 that, quite frankly, probably isn't worth that much in the way of time/effort/money for Blizzard.
And of course that's without bringing up how much of what you called "frustrating mechanics and gimmicks" is integral to race design and diversity in the first place. Warpgate is the archtypal example. It makes a mockery of the cardinal RTS principle of defender's advantage, but after 8 years of Protoss relying on it, removing it and balancing around Gateways would be a nightmare for the balance team, the progamers, and probably the viewers as well. And even if, by some miracle, warpgate was successfully removed and Protoss rebalanced around that, might we just be left with a shinier, beefier, gold-plated-alien version of Terran?
Does SC2 have too many frustrating gimmicks? Yes, most certainly. But sometimes it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie.
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding your warp gate example and question of what Protoss would become, I think the Brood War archetypes are a good example. In SC2, Protoss would still retain its uniqueness without warp gates and, in the spirit of BW, would be geared even more towards more expensive, high tech, units with extra strength and durability to match. I'm not sure if I would actually advocate for their removal at this point for a few reasons, but I think it'd be interesting to try buffing Gateway units and moving warp gates to late(r) game tech. It's just silly how warp gates' existence compromised base Gateway unit strength and forced Blizzard to add in rather silly bandaids like the Mothership Core, or incredibly potent shield batteries and early-game recall as we see now. It's like a gimmicky house of cards!
Overall, you may be right that they're in a bit too deep with some stuff, but hopefully they can continue to address some of these mechanics! Clearly, they aren't completely blind to the issue, but I do wish they'd be willing to take more risks. If it can improve the long-term health of the game (as one would imagine by addressing frustrating mechanics!), it would be worth it in the long run. After all, the last thing one would want for their game is to be more frustrating based on design flaws.
|
On April 22 2018 06:36 QuinnTheEskimo wrote:
I am very glad, that Blizzard realized, that TvP is broken because P can tech up way too quickly. IMO this is what will lead to a good solution. Talking about individual units was never going to get us anywhere. However, I did play P during WOL and HOTS, so I know the alternative to fast P teching, and I didn't particularly like it either. Sometimes I think P is so broken b/c of the fast LOTV eco, but that also doesn't get me anywhere.
TvZ may be in a good spot by some balance metrics, but there still is something that bothers me very much: Hydras are way too good! They are not necessarily OP in direct battles, but on the whole, they are astonishingly cost efficient against Bio, Mech and Air. This versatility is what really bothers me. It makes the game dull to play and watch. I can see this as a low prio problem, because on paper it looks sort of ok balance wise. I'd still call this a problem.
I do not like Blizzard looking at the Liberator as a means to change game balance. They had to nerf it like 3 times to give it a decent spot in the game. Buffing the Liberator is definetly a way to increase T win rate, we've been there, but IMO that would be the same mistake as when they put the Hydra in its current position.
Still, after like 3 months of nothing, at least they could have thrown out a change or two to just see what happens. There is long road up ahead and they are hardly bothering to set one foot before the other.
Protoss can tech way too quickly at any rate and Z can reach Hydras quite conveniently. Cut the research time for stim by 50%. While this change doesn't affect unit interactions at all, it can change build orders a lot and I think that alone can solve most of any problems where T is involved. It might even put an end to this cyclone nonsense in TvT
All that and your conclusion is "cut research time for stim by 50%"? What? sigh...
|
My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
|
On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote:
My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army.
I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day.
|
On April 22 2018 07:22 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote:
My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd. Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army. I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day.
History will be the judge, honestly.
|
On April 22 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 07:22 pvsnp wrote:On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote:
My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd. Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army. I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day. History will be the judge, honestly.
Isn't it always? Hindsight is 20/20
|
On April 22 2018 06:17 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 06:41 aish wrote:On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote:
I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play. have you considered getting better? have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use? have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours? your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed. LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta. My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion. You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others. LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity. In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive. Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people!
Yeah..pretty sad individual.
Great reminder that a good percentage of people who post on these threads will attack literally any post that might evoke a conversation where one of their units could be nerfed. Ignore entirely the guy giving his seemingly honest and harmless feedback about why his experience in the game has diminished and full on flame him counter. Hope the op will recognize this and not let it further discourage him.
|
On April 22 2018 08:20 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 06:17 Drfilip wrote:On April 21 2018 06:41 aish wrote:On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote:
I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play. have you considered getting better? have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use? have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours? your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed. LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta. My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion. You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others. LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity. In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive. Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people! Yeah..pretty sad individual. Great reminder that a good percentage of people who post on these threads will attack literally any post that might evoke a conversation where one of their units could be nerfed. Ignore entirely the guy giving his seemingly honest and harmless feedback about why his experience in the game has diminished and full on flame him counter. Hope the op will recognize this and not let it further discourage him.
Funny how often these posts do just as much or more projecting as the posts they are trying to counter...
|
Exactly that. Zerg has no counter to energy based units. Ghosts haS EMP and snipe, as they both counter hard spellcadters. Protoss has feedbacks obviously. Zerg has nothing indeed, especially that Infestors are the most "nerfed to the ground" units in this game.
Ghost is just too rounded, has no weak sides. Its small model makes it hard to hit it with abduct for example or to snipe it. Infestors on the other hand are big cows, slow and easy to target.
When it comes to changes needed imo: Nerf Chronoboost to balance TvP and weaken lil bit protoss allins like "8gate chargelot" in ZvP. This will also give some more breathing room for Terran and Zerg in economy game and also with uogrades, that are so crutial. Its just not fair that Protoss can have 3/3 when 1/1 is finishing for Terran or Zerg.
Chronoboost and Ravens- this must be adressed.
|
Terran:
i think the viking is very weak armour and HP wise
lil bit more liberator AA would be nice
Battlecruiser should be able to shoot while moving and should get bigger range and maybe lower the fire rate for bigger damage shots and for that cost can nerf the yamato tbh
Protoss:
protoss is in need of a robo unit which only AA ground unit with a spash damage
Zerg:
swarmhosts are highly annoying and the free units are can do so much free damage so quick which is bs
|
Reduce sensor tower range to make turtling mech less viable & make protoss unable to warp units in the sensor tower range.
|
Delay mechanics
'd like to discuss something that's bothered me for aeons. The delay input dynamic. It's not just Terran, but it seems like Terran is the race most negatively affected by this, so I'll use mainly Terran examples I'm familiar with.
Here's the gist: When you assign multiple orders in sequence to a unit/structure without the shift key, sometimes it happens, sometimes one of the things happens randomly.
Example: Seige tank to unseige and move before seiging. How many shift keys should this require? One? Two? Zero? What if I want it to attack move before seiging at the target location?
Another example: Liberator unseige/seige elsewhere. This is just a pain because you have to wait long enough for it to unseige before the seige command is available. This is wasted time unless you're a pro.
Another example: Lift on command center won't work unless you first cancel scv production. WHYYY. Lift should be able to cancel the scv production.
Another example: Vikings won't execute land command until they find a place vertically over where they can land. And if it's filled before they get there, they will hunt for another place.
Another example: Seige tanks and thors won't shoot sometimes because their target acquisition system is puzzled. So annoying.
Another example: Sometimes I box-select 3 scvs and it either gives me one or ALL. And no, I don't press CTRL.
Another example: Production. If I want 3 units per building, I can't tap one time per unit i want- takes too long. I can't hold down the key - takes too long to recognize I want more than one or accidentally drains my bank with too many, killing my macro cycle. Another delay that makes multitasking a pain.
Another example: I want to target 5 banelings with my marines. Why can't I press Attack -> CTRL -> click on one baneling? This one is more nit-picky, but it would be great, for example, if I could select a group of thors and tell them to target a certain type of unit only.
These are just a fraction of the things that have prevented a player of my skill from being able to Macro AND Micro together. It seems like with so much terran micro, you can't assign a task and look away and expect that there's a follow-through.
Pressing Shift also has its issues. For one, you can't start a command sequence with SHIFT key; you have to first find the specific unit/command card you're looking for, assign that command, then start the sequence. This is partly because the command card never is clear - it always has the last unit/building selected.
When I play protoss, the stress of this stuff seems to go away. I press 5 pylon locations and voila! 5 pylons are built. I spam 4 forcefields and voila! they appear. I command a storm and the nearest high templar does the job. I can warp in the exact amoutn of units I want by just spamming it.
Is anyone willing to offer an idea on how this can be addressed? I really doubt I'm the only one who gets annoyed by all these delay mechanics in the game.
|
@KR4_EVR good point. I do get really annoyed with this queuing stuff. Seems inconsistent to me. Also the Medivac unload while moving stuff which is only possible to shift queue when you are over unloadable terrain. I think it would be really cool if they got rid of all the delay.
Though some of the things you mentionend like starting the command sequence with shift I find slightly annoying but still coherent.
|
I pretty much agree with Blizzard regarding TvP. I feel that Protosses are able to expand & tech at the same time with low risk, and that puts them at an advantage. For me, the problem is that the shield battery is too cost-effective. It could cost some gas, so that a fast-expanding Protoss that uses one or two SB to protect his third finds its tech slightly delayed. 50-25 or even 50-50 could be tested.
But I am afraid this would also negatively affect PvZ, especially those high-tech builds required to counter hydra-based play. Not sure how to fix this.
|
On April 23 2018 08:05 Xamo wrote:
I pretty much agree with Blizzard regarding TvP. I feel that Protosses are able to expand & tech at the same time with low risk, and that puts them at an advantage. For me, the problem is that the shield battery is too cost-effective. It could cost some gas, so that a fast-expanding Protoss that uses one or two SB to protect his third finds its tech slightly delayed. 50-25 or even 50-50 could be tested.
But I am afraid this would also negatively affect PvZ, especially those high-tech builds required to counter hydra-based play. Not sure how to fix this.
I think that it might be possible to slightly nerf the reactionary shield batteries as the dropperlords were moved to Lair.
Current SB stats:
- Cost: 100/0
- Starting energy:100/100
Proposal:
- Cost: 150/0
- Starting energy:100/150
That way the immiediate effect of building SB is slighlty nerfed (as you get 100 energy per 150 minerals instead of 100 energy per 100 minerals). However with time SB gather more energy and have same energy-to-minerals ratio as before.
|
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Starcraft 3 hype
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
