EPTWhat are your thoughts on this idea, I hope people can look at this as an serious effort to improve the game, and we can find some good ways to bring sc2 forward. This will also be a better response than to complain about the state of the game.
Balance patching with sc2 map maker as a community
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
What are your thoughts on this idea, I hope people can look at this as an serious effort to improve the game, and we can find some good ways to bring sc2 forward. This will also be a better response than to complain about the state of the game. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
Details : 1 CC = 400 M 1 Orbital (or one barrack in wall) = 150 M 4 depot = 400 M (make wall in an open space) 4 SCV working = 100 M etc... Then there s no real surprise to understand why Terrans are so late entering end game. PS : as you can approximatively have 40 vcs harvesting minerals, you can estimate the amount of mineral / minute (40*42 = 1680).. so a zerg can win about 30 seconds of free income at this moment. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
| ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
We need to deal with it for now. Bring on SC3, with different pathing and positional play :-) | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 12 2020 02:53 StarscreamG1 wrote: For god sake, SC2 problem is not a balance issue, it's a design one. We need to deal with it for now. Bring on SC3, with different pathing and positional play :-) positional play ? How can be translated as Terran (with modern engine as SC2, means not BW) Hum we already talked about it, you re human, not a machine which can watch continusly on multiples positions... | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Getting anyone (especially anyone remotely good) to actually play your mod is basically impossible. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
On April 12 2020 02:53 StarscreamG1 wrote: For god sake, SC2 problem is not a balance issue, it's a design one. We need to deal with it for now. Bring on SC3, with different pathing and positional play :-) But we know that they are not busy with sc3, at least no news about starcraft 3. What is the point of waiting for that and there are definitely changes we can makes to improve the game. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
On April 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Using the starcraft editor to create a mod with balance changes is generally speaking pretty easy (for most balance tweaks that you'd be making). Getting anyone (especially anyone remotely good) to actually play your mod is basically impossible. Thanks for the reply, I also thought this would be the case. I hope we can find a way to get most people into this idea, it needs to be supported by a lot of people for it to work. | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
PS : You can also ask to blizzard to integrate a new type ladder "with fast game in default speed" (melt with the fastest) and in this mod all you have to do is increase time construction building and upgrade research time by 15%. By this way, you keep the tree and give more chance to race which requires more effective APM. It can be done in a day.. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 12 2020 03:09 norlock wrote: Thanks for the reply, I also thought this would be the case. I hope we can find a way to get most people into this idea, it needs to be supported by a lot of people for it to work. I'm highly skeptical it would work. Even when Blizzard put up their balance changes on that separate matchmaking queue no one was playing it. When new maps come out of the TLMC, the finalists have roughly a 50% chance of ending up on ladder eventually, and despite that good players won't play them and give feedback. And community driven balance changes are a good deal more speculative than both of these examples. So yeah you do need to gather a lot of dedicated people willing to test out these changes if you want to get anything out of it. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
On April 12 2020 03:16 Vision_ wrote: In fact the only problem is the ladder, who will play if you can t be ranked ? That's a good point, I just hope there is something possible. I agree that I can only see this work if we can find some cooperation with Blizzard. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 12 2020 03:27 norlock wrote: That's a good point, I just hope there is something possible. I agree that I can only see this work if we can find some cooperation with Blizzard. If you can't get enough people to play custom games on your balance mod, you're not going to get enough people to make automated matchmaking work and even need Blizzard involvement. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
Involve to a SC2 batch for community should be casual oriented, i.e everythings in SC2 can be less done for nags and less punishing. Step by step, you have to reduce the area of impact of each units, you have to decrease personality/features of these units which are clearly overlaping too far with others (little bit too much emphasis in their roles) Most of units are well designed but i m not interesting anymore to the current paths to evolve. Basically, to get closer of casual gamers, i would wish : EMP is way to punishing : there s no escape for protoss because it s an instant. Medivacs couldn t upload every marines in one shot (instant also) Terran Casual builds too many Planetary Forteress because it s so much safer and they have problem to sustain a position while their army is moving.... Banelings are too much expensive and useful for their supply cost (best cost efficient unit). Ultralisks are too strong against Casual Bio Player (If they are not scouted also) Mutalisks seems to struggle against everything (too squishy ?) Creep tumors have the same price than an injection - zerg player could be more versatile and must choose at start between a fast speed expansion or many more units - tumors spell should cost lesser than injection proportionally. (without talking about creep tumors and vision...) Not very aware of Protoss forces and weakness, Disruptors feels poorly designed Mothership core doesn t seem well designed as well. Stalker strenght doesn t seems to scale until end game. Banelings could pick the "charge ability" while zealots could have an armor to replenish their plasma shield (they would have a shorter charge effect by defaut after an hit) | ||
|
WaesumNinja
210 Posts
https://tl.net/forum/sc2-maps/304955-starbow The hardest part is getting the community to play it, since everyone and their dog has their own idea how to "fix" things. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 12 2020 05:29 WaesumNinja wrote: The last big community balancing initiative I can remember was starbow, does anyone know if it's still being worked on/played? Last post in the thread was from 2017: https://tl.net/forum/sc2-maps/304955-starbow The hardest part is getting the community to play it, since everyone and their dog has their own idea how to "fix" things. SC BW remastered have attracted many players of starbow. Despite their huge work i m blaming starbow to copy perfectly / be too close from the original game. They could have mix the macro from SC BW and good idea of SC2 (medivacs, ravagers, colossus, etc..) Indeed, If starbow doesn t reach to be playable in ladder, there s no reason for community to think about SC2 anymore. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
On April 12 2020 05:29 WaesumNinja wrote: The last big community balancing initiative I can remember was starbow, does anyone know if it's still being worked on/played? Last post in the thread was from 2017: https://tl.net/forum/sc2-maps/304955-starbow The hardest part is getting the community to play it, since everyone and their dog has their own idea how to "fix" things. Well I think it was created at a time there was still a lot of balance patches going on, so players didn't feel the need to jump over, another problem with Starbow was that it was a complete new game, so I can also see why that wasn't really appealing. What I believe in more is making units 10 minerals + 10 guess cheaper or more expensive, reducing the range of units, slower build times or macro mechanics. | ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 12 2020 12:42 Morbidius wrote: We should host a Teamliquid balance patch contest every 6 months and the best patch gets into the game. Can't be worse than Blizzard. Unless you want to change adepts with MOBA-like ability... | ||
|
temporary1
69 Posts
To me it seems clear that so called community cries for protoss in every situation, even now when there has been only few premier wins with it since 2017. Protoss has least amout of players in higher leagues, so there isn't that many people defending. Also the mentality has been against protoss pretty much from the get go. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On April 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Using the starcraft editor to create a mod with balance changes is generally speaking pretty easy (for most balance tweaks that you'd be making). Getting anyone (especially anyone remotely good) to actually play your mod is basically impossible. I think you could get traction by going back to the broodlord infestor era, and balancing from there. You could leverage the nostalgia, put up a decent prize pool and iterate over a few tournaments. No idea what you'd do with all the new units though | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 13 2020 22:17 InfCereal wrote: I think you could get traction by going back to the broodlord infestor era, and balancing from there. You could leverage the nostalgia, put up a decent prize pool and iterate over a few tournaments. No idea what you'd do with all the new units though I agree on the process. LoTV isn t a failure and there are some good ideas, i would like also to return to a batch of HoTS. But, first someone has to resume the patch changes (and the main explication of each changes). Community need discord so. My opinion about new units (without too much details, i was Terran) Adept : Design = good, utility = feel weak in end game Disruptor : Design = bad, utility = too much dedicated to make damage Ravager : Design = good, utility = good Lurker : Design = good, utility = good Cyclone : Design = ??, utility = mixed (Terran will kite forever ?? seems to overlap a bit with Thor role but coming sooner) Liberator : Design = good, utility = good PS : Thor has herited of some kind of rapid fire as Goliath (last change confirmed the direction of tests - progressive burst), then cyclone should get an another role... | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
What I observed was that either: - changes were big and made the game broken. More broken than now! - or changes were small and most people didn't even notice the difference. At this point I believe what we need is: - someone charismatic to make good publicity. Shake things up. Make people want to play whatever mod we come up with - Change a lot. Literally make a new game within the SC2 engine. Because small changes are either inconsequential below master's level of play, or too broken. So - we need something new, so that it could capture attention on all levels of play. But then - it is no longer just balancing. It becomes something much bigger, and I don't think it is what you intended... | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
I do think the one thing that would need a fix is that at pro level it seems like mech has been boxed out again, I think some of this is due to zergs perfecting roach allins and nydus swarmhost as counterplay to BC opening which essentially axed it, you used to see BC open evrey game but now at the pro level it’s dead and new mech was built on the back of bcs since they let Terran apply pressure and keep pace with zerg effectively. I would like to see a slight nerf to ravager Allin, maybe a buff to banshee build time to help fend it off as a response more effectively. Maybe an adjustment to swarmhost something to get pros interested in mech as at least an option in a bo7 series. Tvp and PvP on the other hand are both in a fairly awful state I would definitely hope the balance team looks at those mus. Maybe not statistically but definitely not in a fun or well balanced state, t seems to be back to the 2 base Allin because balance is not good meta, and PvP well, it just sucks | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3344 Posts
| ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States674 Posts
On April 12 2020 05:29 WaesumNinja wrote: The last big community balancing initiative I can remember was starbow, does anyone know if it's still being worked on/played? Last post in the thread was from 2017: https://tl.net/forum/sc2-maps/304955-starbow The hardest part is getting the community to play it, since everyone and their dog has their own idea how to "fix" things. It's hard to get people to play it because SC2 custom maps appear in the queue based on what Blizzard wants there ("popularity") and not what people are actually hosting. In other words, you can host an unpopular game and sit in lobby for hours and no one will see the game appear on the list - meanwhile, other games/maps appear on the list despite the fact that no one is hosting them. That's been an unsolved problem since day 1, and it's entirely stifled creative development through the Sc2 engine. | ||
|
ginsstaahh
1 Post
I hear what people are saying that people won't play the mods. What I think could really help is if we get people with a big audience like Lowko to play and demonstrate a community-made mod that greatly improves mechanics as well as makes the game more fun! Let's be honest, the game has been getting quite stale. To make people want to support a mod it first has to be fun with new or revamped units/abilities before it gets balanced. It allows people to start to accept certain ideas of changing the game without breaking balance in ladder, giving the game as a whole a fresher direction than the way it's been going recently. I've actually been working on my own mod for personal interest but would be willing to share it with others if they'd be interested. Maybe we can work on it together! Personally, I'm tired of playing sc2 but love the game as a whole. There's not a lot of games with depth to their races like sc. However, I don't like the state of the game currently. I think there are a lot of ways which it can be improved if Blizzard is willing to put the time, money, and effort into it. | ||
|
omop
42 Posts
On April 14 2020 06:21 ThunderJunk wrote: It's hard to get people to play it because SC2 custom maps appear in the queue based on what Blizzard wants there ("popularity") and not what people are actually hosting. In other words, you can host an unpopular game and sit in lobby for hours and no one will see the game appear on the list - meanwhile, other games/maps appear on the list despite the fact that no one is hosting them. That's been an unsolved problem since day 1, and it's entirely stifled creative development through the Sc2 engine. Actually that problem have been solved years ago. You can see open lobbies in arcade. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States674 Posts
On April 14 2020 13:23 omop wrote: Actually that problem have been solved years ago. You can see open lobbies in arcade. Oh, really! Noice! Yeah then make the map! | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
Second, the "community" means nothing... Who will decide that their change should be implemented, and some not ? You're free to propose the changes you want, make a mod to allow them to be played, and if it's good people will play it, if not, people won't. It's democratic. The reality is just people just use balance as a way to whine/an excuse for their poor ladder performance, and are heavily biased toward their race, and their propositions are just "buff my race /nerf the others to help me to climb ladder faster". But when he creates his own patch, he can't find a lot of people from the other races that want to play his mod, because his mod is not good ! That's all. So, yeah we don't have community based patches in the game, not because it's hard to do, just because they're worst than the one from the balance team. | ||
|
I wasbanned fromthis
113 Posts
The problem isn't the game, it's the subjective reality players consume themselves with. | ||
|
virpi
Germany3598 Posts
On April 14 2020 17:18 I wasbanned fromthis wrote: A decade of people saying fix this or that, with reasonable breakdowns or not... The problem isn't the game, it's the subjective reality players consume themselves with. True. It's easy to make suggestions, just look at Beastyqt's extensive list. He basically wants a complete redesign of the game, which is a fun idea, but will never happen. (There's also quite some terran bias in his proposals, but that's normal. You always think that your own race has a disadvantage.) SC2 has some fundamental design flaws, which will never get adressed. Some examples: 1. Warp in. Makes PvP random as shit, leads to very ugly power spikes. Protoss production becomes a clusterfuck once there are some robos and stargates in play. We take it for granted, but actually, it's kind of convoluted. The ability to easily hide tech / production on the map also makes PvP somewhat unbearable. I highly respect every protoss pro, who's good at this matchup. It's 4D chess with a blindfold. 2. Creep. It has been slightly nerfed, but it's still by far the most powerful utility in the game. Zerg needs more vision than the other 2 races, but right now, it's brutally hard for T and P (esp. for bio T) to engage on creep. 3. Deathballs. Players have become really good at splitting and setting up engagements to counter SC2's blob mechanics. Battles still are very fast paced, sometimes split second decisions can turn a whole game upside down. That's very unforgiving, especially in comparison to BW, where engagements were more spread out and slower overall. (They were also an infinite amount harder to control.) I could go on, but I think you get the point. There definitely are some imbalances in SC2, but I think some of them are deeply rooted in fundamental game mechanics, which will not be changed by Blizzard. There will be balance patches for the foreseeable future, but I don't expect them to go for a complete shakeup, as the SC2 team simply isn't that big anymore. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3344 Posts
On April 14 2020 18:46 virpi wrote: True. It's easy to make suggestions, just look at Beastyqt's extensive list. He basically wants a complete redesign of the game, which is a fun idea, but will never happen. (There's also quite some terran bias in his proposals, but that's normal. You always think that your own race has a disadvantage.) SC2 has some fundamental design flaws, which will never get adressed. Some examples: 1. Warp in. Makes PvP random as shit, leads to very ugly power spikes. Protoss production becomes a clusterfuck once there are some robos and stargates in play. We take it for granted, but actually, it's kind of convoluted. The ability to easily hide tech / production on the map also makes PvP somewhat unbearable. I highly respect every protoss pro, who's good at this matchup. It's 4D chess with a blindfold. 2. Creep. It has been slightly nerfed, but it's still by far the most powerful utility in the game. Zerg needs more vision than the other 2 races, but right now, it's brutally hard for T and P (esp. for bio T) to engage on creep. 3. Deathballs. Players have become really good at splitting and setting up engagements to counter SC2's blob mechanics. Battles still are very fast paced, sometimes split second decisions can turn a whole game upside down. That's very unforgiving, especially in comparison to BW, where engagements were more spread out and slower overall. (They were also an infinite amount harder to control.) I could go on, but I think you get the point. There definitely are some imbalances in SC2, but I think some of them are deeply rooted in fundamental game mechanics, which will not be changed by Blizzard. There will be balance patches for the foreseeable future, but I don't expect them to go for a complete shakeup, as the SC2 team simply isn't that big anymore. 1: Why does the Warp in mechanic only ruin PvP?. I would say it's because Protoss defenders advantage is weaker, but I actually think a bigger problem in that matchup is the OP Prism. If you don't have Prism your units don't have Blink and units with Blink is often way stronger than a couple of Shield Batteries. 2. Creep can be changed in all sorts of ways. If you want vision to stay, you can still nerf the speed or just how much Creep is possible to spread. You could make Nuke insta-remove Creep etc. 3. I think this is two things. 1) Balling your units is less interesting. 2) Damage or AoE is too high. I personally think LotV has fixed most of this. Protoss use units that are much bigger which in itself makes the battle larger (Archons/Immortals.) A bunch of AoE options as well as positional units has been added so doing a binary attack which wins or loses the game has been severely nerfed. More often than not we see 2 armies instead of 1 which is really cool. I do think late game AoE is still not sufficient to ward the enemy away and eco at 3 base + makes it so that your opponent can only progress so much, which means the game at this late stage becomes more stale. This is why I think upping the supply limit or removing late game Mineral Patches would make the late game more interesting. Edit: With damage being too high, I think the solution is funnily enough to increase AoE damage and keeping zoning units useful that way when you win an engagement, you don't kill all the units, because units like the Siege Tank stops you from advancing further. Terran has the biggest damage dealers, but TvT is fixed by Tanks, Liberators, Mines, Planetaries and in the earlier days Seeker Missiles. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 14 2020 18:46 virpi wrote: True. It's easy to make suggestions, just look at Beastyqt's extensive list. He basically wants a complete redesign of the game, which is a fun idea, but will never happen. (There's also quite some terran bias in his proposals, but that's normal. You always think that your own race has a disadvantage.) SC2 has some fundamental design flaws, which will never get adressed. Some examples: 1. Warp in. Makes PvP random as shit, leads to very ugly power spikes. Protoss production becomes a clusterfuck once there are some robos and stargates in play. We take it for granted, but actually, it's kind of convoluted. The ability to easily hide tech / production on the map also makes PvP somewhat unbearable. I highly respect every protoss pro, who's good at this matchup. It's 4D chess with a blindfold. 2. Creep. It has been slightly nerfed, but it's still by far the most powerful utility in the game. Zerg needs more vision than the other 2 races, but right now, it's brutally hard for T and P (esp. for bio T) to engage on creep. 3. Deathballs. Players have become really good at splitting and setting up engagements to counter SC2's blob mechanics. Battles still are very fast paced, sometimes split second decisions can turn a whole game upside down. That's very unforgiving, especially in comparison to BW, where engagements were more spread out and slower overall. (They were also an infinite amount harder to control.) I could go on, but I think you get the point. There definitely are some imbalances in SC2, but I think some of them are deeply rooted in fundamental game mechanics, which will not be changed by Blizzard. There will be balance patches for the foreseeable future, but I don't expect them to go for a complete shakeup, as the SC2 team simply isn't that big anymore. I can answer to the problem, it s recurrent. Generally, players are frustated because opponent won without take any significant risks. Creep is the best example for that, but also banelings which is poorly designed : indeed, it s more simple to make units as banelings with a progressive loss of damage relatively to the point of impact than (actually) a single damage value in the whole circle area (i.e if player split well, his chance to avoid insane damage is decreased). I didn t think to the warp prism problem, but now we have some feed-backs regarding "teleport problem" especially with BC. Problem of toss comes from another dimensions, it s about as you say "cluster****"... But in terms of gameplay, it s the same problem : Let s take a TvP example (it worked also in PvP), Terran pushed along the game but didn t reach to make the difference and Toss finally has increased his strenght of his deathball (archon, colossus, immortal...). Despite of that, Terran could have handle the Toss counter-attack with a good micro with mines. Now if you add the opportunity to Toss to "" warp-in Terran main base multiples times without any take of risks "", the terran will be frustated (and tired) to lose because he can t watch closely at the same time on his deathball / army and his own base. That being said, problem comes from another dimension : amount of units. Then, there is no other choice to consider an additional minerals costs to the warped units regarding the distance with the nearest base ( +X per 20 titles for example...). By the way, Toss can always make some warp-in but with more difficulty to iterate his harassement (then you can adjust the balance in increasing duration of warp-prism passing in phase mode : 2 to 3 seconds) I don t have any example in PvP but I am confident that i can find a close example. PS : like BC unit is already created, you can add additional time depending of distance when the unit is teleporting. | ||
|
virpi
Germany3598 Posts
Protoss really looks kind of lost vs. zerg right now. The problem is that you can't simply just buff some protoss mid game stuff without destroying PvT. Nerfing banes (at least reverting that strange HP buff) might be a good start. Lots of balance suggestions are highly situational. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 14 2020 20:40 virpi wrote: It's a can of worms. I just deleted a huge blurb of nonsense. I'm fine with the overall state of the game right now. There are glaring issues, but I have no clue on how to fix them. I've got ideas, but every time I start thinking about one, I realize that there are tons of other factors to be considered. And I'm by no means good enough at the game to actually say something useful about balance. (peaked at 5k, 4,5k rn) Protoss really looks kind of lost vs. zerg right now. The problem is that you can't simply just buff some protoss mid game stuff without destroying PvT. Nerfing banes (at least reverting that strange HP buff) might be a good start. Lots of balance suggestions are highly situational. Banelings balance is also about key attributes (defence, speed, cost, sight,..), a little bit unique cause it s directly linked to his supply cost which is really small (0.5) and his highly cost effiency. I think banelings is more question of a designed problem than an attributes changes: They would need more micro management : idea of a "charge ability" (zealots keep a small charge after hit and get a new ability as replenish plasma shield) or something else. Their damage need also to be progressive. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On April 14 2020 18:46 virpi wrote: 2. Creep. It has been slightly nerfed, but it's still by far the most powerful utility in the game. Zerg needs more vision than the other 2 races, but right now, it's brutally hard for T and P (esp. for bio T) to engage on creep. Well it's kind of clear, you never played Zerg. You act like the creep is spreading alone. Switch to Zerg, you'll notice your creep spread will be way worst than the one from competent Zerg player. Do that while you're constantly injecting, dealing with multiple harass, fighting, teching, and replace it when creep is denied is not an easy task. But you prefer to deny to the player the skill he has to spread and treat that as "it's imbalance". Also you act like creep is a fatality, while it's not. Overlord vision can be denied by air units (phoenix/vikings), creep by actively killing creep (observer, scan, raven + units). Vision of the map is an active battle. If you don't do anything to win it and prefer whine "creep OP" on forum, it's sure you'll lose the battle. It's double standard when the Zerg isn't credited for his good creep spread, and the T/P can't be blamed for not doing anything to deny creep... Also, about the speed boost on creep, you don't mention that if Zerg is favored on creep, he is disadvantaged offcreep. And yes, without creep, zerglings/banelings are crushed vs bio, and that's why Zerg is defensive vs Terran, it's less true vs Protoss, but on the other, creep is worst vs Protoss. So it's like as Terran you start with the whole map giving you an advantage in fight, as if Zerg has started with the whole map with creep spread. Zerg has to actively spread creep to advance on the map, and as a result it takes more time for Zerg to manage to win, while Terran is able to kill Zerg really fast if he is ahead. It's really a biased point of view to only highlight the fact Zerg has an advantage when he defends on creep, while not mentionning you have the same advantage when you defend because Zerg is offcreep. This is perfectly fair that the one who defend has an advantage, and yes he can push creep to extend the area where he has an advantage, but you can push it back, AND you start with the whole map giving you an advantage vs Zerg units. | ||
|
c0sm0naut
United States1229 Posts
| ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On April 22 2020 23:18 c0sm0naut wrote: they can balance the game with maps imo Maps doesn t change something at this point. For example what they called the 'Rush maps' are only the smallest dimension of "normal map". They doesn t bring something new in term of balance, it s only a way to hide the lack of innovation in map making. | ||
| ||
