| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On July 04 2019 22:38 SHODAN wrote: I stopped reading right here. imagine actually believing that stalkers, sentries, HTs and DTs are trash vs. terran... just wow  but terran doesnt have trouble in defending 4s warp in,they got trouble in dealing with the unit being warped | ||
|
papapanda
Taiwan326 Posts
| ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
"I also consider myself a main expert when it comes to balance conversations." -Serral | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1106 Posts
On July 04 2019 23:06 Nars_ wrote: He said that with context (medivac drop) in mind. But I guess you're too smart to actually read posts. I understand the context because I read the post he was replying. it's an outrageous claim in the context of defending medivac drops HT trade very favorably. feedback the dropship, storm the bio, soak damage with your archon merge while you warp in 20 zealots DT trade very favorably when T is low on orbital energy. they are the best drop-defense in base-trade scenarios, when all of T's orbitals are floating in the air blink stalkers are an excellent deterrent and great for catching retreating medivacs as they boost out. they can fight straight-up when they have zealots buffering for them. "if you dont micro them (stalkers) they will just die vs anything that is dropped" does this guy not research blink? so really, P has 4 gateway units that are great vs. drops | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary388 Posts
On July 04 2019 23:26 papapanda wrote: Can you play the with the proposed changes in custom games? yes, use "create with mod" and then choose "blizzard mods" in the drop down list at the top, then click "balance test mod". gl hf | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
Lol, I didn't know better I would think Serral lurks TL forums and were poking fun at certain "x race were in y finals therefore x race is OP" posters xD | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On July 04 2019 22:29 SHODAN wrote: I was writing specifically about Protoss defenses against the threat of doom drops (the closest equivalence to mass zealot warp-ins). it's true that Protoss may have to build shield batteries vs cloak banshee and hellion harass. hellions and banshees drop off in the mid-game. Maru's non-stop mine drop style is vulnerable to counter-attacks. TY's multi-pronged liberator / soft ground push is the most solid harassment option, but there is always an answer. there is no answer to the warp prism. T must focus his entire infrastructure to make harass units, while also preparing to defend against a slew of different counter-attack options. P's infrastructure is more flexible allows for a seamless transition into the mid-game. building early-game hellions / mines / banshees / liberators hurts Terran in some other corner: delayed barracks, delayed stim, lower marauder count going into the mid-game. I don't think it's comparable to the warp prism, which pays for itself even when zero damage is done, and which remains a very powerful unit into the late-game (storm drops). I disagree with your claim that sniping Protoss tech structures and expansions in the mid-game is a bread & butter play. dropping large chunks of bio in the mid-game is a weak play. pro Terrans rarely lift their marauders off the ground nowadays. drops only work when your opponent is out of position, and it's incredibly difficult to do this vP because of recall. you even said so yourself: "HOTS style harass is gone" You can do a hellion drop sub 4 minutes and the build is still economic. Protoss couterattacking against a turtled terran spamming drops at their mineral line is not simple. if they neglect their base they lose entire economy. while trying to break the best defensive and most efficient race in the game The answer to TY style harass is.....investing heavily in defense. if the protoss does not, he loses game. The investment, which is 3 or so stalkers per mineral line (and even that doesnt always prevent the drop/damage from occurring) is more than what terran needs to stop prism (a patroling viking, a raven, a cyclone, and/or a turret) Terran literally has the most flexible and fastest tech tree out of all three races. You can do a massive stim push at 6:35 or so with 2-3 tanks, 2 libs, 2 cyclones, raven and couple of marauders and just boost medivacs to army while siege outside protoss base......if the protoss goes for 3rd base (nexus should be just finished and protoss will be caught with pants down trying to saturate base). Warp prism backstab does not hold a candle to the strength of this push. Also, the warp prism backstab comes with opportunity cost of no juggling during the front line engagement, as well as missing units at the front line. I still see pros sending a medivac of bio to do damage at main/expansions. They arent heavy enough to warrant recall. But anyway, you say you were talking about doom drops since they are the closest thing to mass zealot warp in. I strongly disagree that they are close in terms of capability. Marine maruder medivac mine is vastly superior to a handful of zealots in terms of raw power and capabilities. The races arent designed to be symmetrical. The whole philosophy of starcraft is asymmetric but equal. So Terran lacking doom drops nowadays has nothing to do with protoss ability to warp in chargelots in enemy base. Terran has its own strengths that protoss cannot dream of. Terran cannot simply be equal or better than protoss at everything. | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
On July 04 2019 01:40 Moonerz wrote: Yes, you don't have to be a pro player to understand the game. But I am far more likely to believe that people who make their living off of the game might know quite a bit about the game as opposed to some random high level player. I'm sure Blizzard asks a panel of pros what they think about certain things. They then use that information combined with their thoughts and the stats they have to start making changes. They're not just asking one pro player and then making sweeping changes to the game. Regardless of how you try to frame it pro player input is extremely valuable to balance discussions/changes. They are also far more likely to give bad biased inputs. Making all the information gathered unreliable and more confusing than helpful. If I was making what the Top Pro's are making in SC2 I'd find it hard not to be biased towards my own race. SC2 is not rocket science, it is pure math combined with the human factor of capability. Pro's give us all the feedback we need when they play games in the most prestigious tournaments (high cash prizes) or when monitoring high MMR ladder games ( which I hope Blizzard are actively doing). The only input Blizzard should take from community and pros is how much fun they have playing or watching the game and try to decide what is the healthiest for the game. This means making changes to the game that are based on game design and not balance. (at certain points balance and fun gameplay can walk hand in hand but these are things Blizzard should be able to handle by themselves) Meaning good game design comes before balance, create a good game design then balance accordingly. From what I see Blizzard is balancing really horrible game design and it will never be good until they realize the game has some serious game design flaws and change the game drastically. What I don't understand is why they don't make a Private server where they test out drastic changes to game design and see how it plays, so many people would play it and they could test things without having to interfere with the current balance. Just have the server running 24/7 it would be a huge resource for them. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Nerfing the prism warp instead of the pickup range is incomprehensible too. The rest seems fine. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Carrier buff seems odd too since the unit is already very strong. I don't get this statement at all. Why do you think that? Consensus is generally that they were overnerfed out of viability a while back and they'll still be a lot weaker than they used to be after the buff. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On July 05 2019 01:58 Dedraterllaerau wrote: They are also far more likely to give bad biased inputs. Making all the information gathered unreliable and more confusing than helpful. If I was making what the Top Pro's are making in SC2 I'd find it hard not to be biased towards my own race. SC2 is not rocket science, it is pure math combined with the human factor of capability. Pro's give us all the feedback we need when they play games in the most prestigious tournaments (high cash prizes) or when monitoring high MMR ladder games ( which I hope Blizzard are actively doing). The only input Blizzard should take from community and pros is how much fun they have playing or watching the game and try to decide what is the healthiest for the game. This means making changes to the game that are based on game design and not balance. (at certain points balance and fun gameplay can walk hand in hand but these are things Blizzard should be able to handle by themselves) Meaning good game design comes before balance, create a good game design then balance accordingly. From what I see Blizzard is balancing really horrible game design and it will never be good until they realize the game has some serious game design flaws and change the game drastically. What I don't understand is why they don't make a Private server where they test out drastic changes to game design and see how it plays, so many people would play it and they could test things without having to interfere with the current balance. Just have the server running 24/7 it would be a huge resource for them. Hahaha I don't know if you did it on purpose but that was hilarious. You got it the other way around dude, rocket science isn't starcraft. Rocket science is just math(physics math), it is much simplier than starcraft. To figure out how a given balance change will effect the the different matches, the different phases of a game and the actual meta is much more complex than rocket science which is just math =P How to shoot a rocket into orbit isn't as hard as figuring out starcraft patches and how it will influence meta. Letting pros decide balance is obviously a bad idea but asking them for feedback is a really good idea, for any small team of balance designers it is really hard to just come up with the perfect solutions themselves. Taking inspiration and asking for feedback from the community and pros is actually the best way to go, one person has to be a true genius to be able to figure out starcraft balance on their own. Pro feedback and suggestions is a great way to start discussions in a a balance team. Of course they cant just say "if X played thinks we should do Y ofc we should", they have to analyze the reasoning behind what the pro says and think independently about how the suggestion would work in practise. For me it sounds baffling to think the balance team should decide on balance in a vacum and not listen to community and pros. However listening to does not equal "do as they say". | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
On July 05 2019 04:21 Shuffleblade wrote: Hahaha I don't know if you did it on purpose but that was hilarious. You got it the other way around dude, rocket science isn't starcraft. Rocket science is just math(physics math), it is much simplier than starcraft. To figure out how a given balance change will effect the the different matches, the different phases of a game and the actual meta is much more complex than rocket science which is just math =P How to shoot a rocket into orbit isn't as hard as figuring out starcraft patches and how it will influence meta. Letting pros decide balance is obviously a bad idea but asking them for feedback is a really good idea, for any small team of balance designers it is really hard to just come up with the perfect solutions themselves. Taking inspiration and asking for feedback from the community and pros is actually the best way to go, one person has to be a true genius to be able to figure out starcraft balance on their own. Pro feedback and suggestions is a great way to start discussions in a a balance team. Of course they cant just say "if X played thinks we should do Y ofc we should", they have to analyze the reasoning behind what the pro says and think independently about how the suggestion would work in practise. For me it sounds baffling to think the balance team should decide on balance in a vacum and not listen to community and pros. However listening to does not equal "do as they say". It's a figure of speech, in case the point I was trying to make was too hard on you. And if you're gonna just skim through what I write and reply then why reply at all really? Obviously in deep need of "winning a discussion". It's not hard for a balance team to make good decisions if they watch all the high-end SC2 content and play at a very high level themselves. Many of the things you point out a balance team should do I said they should do to some extent so you clearly are not reading what I write you just want an argument. This isn't a competition, it's about sharing different points of views without having to start conversing like a child in need of approval. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On July 05 2019 04:50 Dedraterllaerau wrote: It's a figure of speech, in case the point I was trying to make was too hard on you. And if you're gonna just skim through what I write and reply then why reply at all really? Obviously in deep need of "winning a discussion". It's not hard for a balance team to make good decisions if they watch all the high-end SC2 content and play at a very high level themselves. Many of the things you point out a balance team should do I said they should do to some extent so you clearly are not reading what I write you just want an argument. This isn't a competition, it's about sharing different points of views without having to start conversing like a child in need of approval. Why are you so hung up on who is wrong and who is right? Get over it. No you wrote the opposite of what I wrote, I was saying that the balance team should take info from pros and community and you wrote: "The only input Blizzard should take from community and pros is how much fun they have playing or watching the game and try to decide what is the healthiest for the game" The opposite of my opinion, how you believe that we think the same thing is beyond me. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On July 04 2019 23:26 papapanda wrote: Can you play the with the proposed changes in custom games? Do you really expect that anyone except terran players want to test them ? You will get only TvT. | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
On July 05 2019 05:03 Shuffleblade wrote: Why are you so hung up on who is wrong and who is right? Get over it. No you wrote the opposite of what I wrote, I was saying that the balance team should take info from pros and community and you wrote: "The only input Blizzard should take from community and pros is how much fun they have playing or watching the game and try to decide what is the healthiest for the game" The opposite of my opinion, how you believe that we think the same thing is beyond me. I'm telling you I feel they should ask community and pro's questions about how they enjoy each matchup etc, the only thing we disagree on is if it's of any real help to ask pro's very balance specific questions. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
On July 05 2019 03:02 Cyro wrote: I don't get this statement at all. Why do you think that? Consensus is generally that they were overnerfed out of viability a while back and they'll still be a lot weaker than they used to be after the buff. I don't know i didnt' follow the scene closely these last few months be last i did i thought they were extraordinarily tanky and that they're really fast to build. Truthfully they change units so often now it's hard to keep up but it's like 8 dmg per interceptor, 100 more HP and faster to build isn't it? | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On July 05 2019 07:09 JackONeill wrote: I don't know i didnt' follow the scene closely these last few months be last i did i thought they were extraordinarily tanky and that they're really fast to build. Truthfully they change units so often now it's hard to keep up but it's like 8 dmg per interceptor, 100 more HP and faster to build isn't it? they need 3/3 upgrade and the absence of BCs to dominate both bio and mech but they are still shit in PvZ | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On July 05 2019 07:09 JackONeill wrote: I don't know i didnt' follow the scene closely these last few months be last i did i thought they were extraordinarily tanky and that they're really fast to build. Truthfully they change units so often now it's hard to keep up but it's like 8 dmg per interceptor, 100 more HP and faster to build isn't it? Carriers were never extraordinarily tanky. that description applies to the BC, not the carrier Carriers lost the graviton catapult upgrade and interceptor build time increased.. Thors got buffed against massive units. Mines got drilling claws. Feedback got nerfed (relevant in PvZ where infestors arent heavily threatened by high templars now) Carrier got nerfed hard compared to the version you remember | ||
|
IshinShishi
Japan6156 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1915 Posts
 2012 Battle.net World ChampionshipOk, it is not a given that SC2 would have beaten out the MOBAs anyway, but wasting the viewer's time in crucial months as well as killing the KESPA entry hype because of awful balance and game design certainly did not help... I hope the infested terran nerf helps end my suffering! | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
