EPTHow important is it for StarCraft II to get a new balance…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TheCheapSkate
Slovenia317 Posts
| ||
|
sirok_
33 Posts
On February 28 2022 21:09 TheCheapSkate wrote: You forgot the most abused and op unit in the game: the queen At this point, the question is not whether or not the Queen should be nerfed, but whether or not Blizzard is capable and willing to patch it. The Queen requires a SIGNIFICANT nerf while not making Zerg too vulnerable to early air. This is complex, requires testing, and, in the worse case, additional updates linked to T / P / Z early air build-time. I'm afraid Blizzard will be afraid of this complexity and opt for a bad solution that is more in line with how many employees are in charge of SC2 balance, i.e. doing nothing or opting for an insignificant Queen nerf. | ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
|
catplanetcatplanet
3835 Posts
 | ||
|
depressed1
51 Posts
I mean, no whine. That's just a honest thing. I'm tired of watching ZvZ for years. | ||
|
sirok_
33 Posts
On March 01 2022 00:13 depressed1 wrote: I think realistically patch will bring us nothing. Critical mistakes were made. Most of the changes that were made were reverted back. Like marauders/mines/observers/tempests/stalkers/hydra etc. That was just a smoke screen. LotV units can't fit well. If you want change something for real you need to have a global patch that will be addressing problems to vipers/infestrs/lurkers/banes/queens/cyclones/ghosts/mines/liberators/disruptors/shield batteries/zealots/carriers. You need to the synergies in between mech and bio openings. You need to find a way to create a fair micro/macro engagements in between sky protoss army and zerg/terran. But this is unreal. It was abandoned too long. It also pushes us to abandon the diversity in maps. I mean, no whine. That's just a honest thing. I'm tired of watching ZvZ for years. I have no doubts about your sincerity. However, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, which sounds to me like "trying to improve the game is pointless because it is so far from my ideals." The patch's goal is not to make the game ideal or perfect, but to make it significantly more dynamic and balanced than it is now, which is most likely doable without completely reinventing almost all unit stats. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26553 Posts
On March 01 2022 04:25 sirok_ wrote: I have no doubts about your sincerity. However, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, which sounds to me like "trying to improve the game is pointless because it is so far from my ideals." The patch's goal is not to make the game ideal or perfect, but to make it significantly more dynamic and balanced than it is now, which is most likely doable without completely reinventing almost all unit stats. I’ve dipped my toes into watching AoE4, a game of which I know little. What little I do know does seem that there’s consensus some matchups are far from balanced. Additionally, while it’s good to watch, the micro aspect isn’t quite as fun to watch (for me), the game looks great but it’s less visceral and flashy than a high level SC2 game. Warcraft 3 isn’t close to perfect balance, a game I’m much more familiar with. BW requires every trick in the mapmaking book to balance. I’ve never played an RTS with genuinely asymmetric factions that approaches perfect balance. Much less one that fulfils everyone’s expectations on how the game ‘should’ play and what skill sets it should reward or make viable. Or what is considered good design in interactions. Despite often justified complaints the game’s balance across the board isn’t that bad at all. Certainly it’s close enough that some tweaks could at least improve things, especially with more experimentation in maps. There are underlining design choices and interactions that make it, at this stage very, very unlikely to have blizzard root and branch tweak things more radically. But yeah, can it be better than it is now with minor tweaks and experimentation? 100% Even if SC2 is just getting the kind of love HoTS gets, with input from knowledgeable players and nothing more than that, it beats settling on this as the final patch | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
Which is why I prefer to play AOE4 where mechanics are still important but you can actually outhink and beat opponents by playing smarter. In SC2 it is not really possible to do that anymore. SC2 is still awesome to watch, but it does not really feel like a RTS to play. More like a task simulator where you need execute lots off different tasks as fast and precise as possible. If SC2 was patched regulary being able to adapt to patches and figuring out new builds would matter more than just micro and mulitask better than your opponent. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26553 Posts
SC2 doesn’t just settle into a groove where it’s more and more about mechanical execution, Zerg have a higher ceiling there than Protoss especially. And are the defensive reactive race that has more flexibility to adjust to trickery to boot. At the highest level the top Zergs can look nigh unstoppable when they’ve figured out the meta fully. On the flip side for us plebs who don’t have those stellar mechanics some matchups can be extremely difficult. In the absence of deeper redesigns, a patch that isn’t utter trash will improve things just by resetting things for a while. I think we also need a bigger map pool that accommodates more non-standard and also a few matchup specific maps too, which could help. There’s some variance, they’re not totally identikit but the standard maps are pretty similar in layout and flow. There’s not a huge amount of features where clever players could pose different questions. With long stretches without other changes, and pros grinding maps that are very similar for months and months, it seems inevitable to me that given how Zerg especially works they’re going to do pretty well. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17727 Posts
On March 01 2022 21:11 MockHamill wrote: I think the main problem with SC2 is that is has turned into a game that almost exclusivly is decided by mechanics. If your opponent has better mechanics you will lose, almost no matter what you do. Which is why I prefer to play AOE4 where mechanics are still important but you can actually outhink and beat opponents by playing smarter. In SC2 it is not really possible to do that anymore. SC2 is still awesome to watch, but it does not really feel like a RTS to play. More like a task simulator where you need execute lots off different tasks as fast and precise as possible. If SC2 was patched regulary being able to adapt to patches and figuring out new builds would matter more than just micro and mulitask better than your opponent. try out my SC2 Randomizer extension mod  @WombaT bigger map pool with more vetoes available is a great idea, it allows pros to adapt their map selection more quickly than tournaments are able to, so we can better avoid all of the maps that we discover to be imbalanced even in the middle of a tournament | ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
| ||
