|
France11488 Posts
On February 27 2022 20:38 Jerubaal wrote:
It's kind of interesting, looking back, at the perception during WoL that Zerg just didn't have good units. In the two expansions afterwards, they've gotten so many goodies: ravager, viper, lurker. And you're seeing these units being used to great effect. Zerg has so many options for what they want to do. Terran was a little hit or miss (Hellbat and cyclone) but Liberator and widow mine were definitely good additions. Watching TvZ feels like you're watching the same game as in WoL but evolved, with more wrinkles.
Protoss was appraised and Blizz thought, "eh, they're fine, let's just patch a few small holes." So Protoss got Reaper and a Banshee/Observer hybrid. And no matter how well you think they perform those roles, they don't change how Protoss plays or much strategically beyond the openings. The Disruptor was a welcome addition, but it was just a replacement after the colossus got completely gutted. Oh, yeah. I guess the Tempest is a thing.
The baneling buff patch after ByuN victory was HUGE. It should not be forgotten. I agree with removing tankivacs, and making reapers less strong than they were, but buffing a core unit like that "lasts forever".
On February 28 2022 03:45 CaRn1FeX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 00:52 Poopi wrote:
TvZ is still relatively loved but you feel that once lurkers are out it's just an uphill battle, and that queens basically counter everything which is also relatively bad design wise. Feels like you could easily replace with P and the statement is still valid to some degree. Lurkers make it very hard to play for both, Toss and Terran. Toss needs to switch to Skytoss to have a chance. Queens feel too strong and multi-purpose as well in PvZ
Yeah, lurkers are a problem in PvZ too and they decided to fix that by buffing voidrays etc but air units being too strong usually make for horrible games in Starcraft 2, so this was probably a very bad solution.
The good thing though, is that we have really seen how the map pool can hugely affect balance, since TvZ was in a good spot on the previous mappool, suggesting that balance was kinda fine, but it got really bad on the new map pool. Clem who was super dominant in TvZ got nerfed and other terrans as well. Maru being godlike made it look like it was somewhat balanced by beating good zergs, but he was still saying TvZ was difficult in his interview, and we saw in the most important tournament that zergs indeed adapted.
If balance can swing that much with maps, that means that we can make a fun / good design game, try to tune it to be relatively balanced / change things up if necessary, and use maps very carefully as a way to balance things out even more.
TL;DR: if Blizzard / whoever has the power keep investing a bit into the game (and not just financially), this could be promising.
|
On February 28 2022 03:51 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 20:38 Jerubaal wrote:
It's kind of interesting, looking back, at the perception during WoL that Zerg just didn't have good units. In the two expansions afterwards, they've gotten so many goodies: ravager, viper, lurker. And you're seeing these units being used to great effect. Zerg has so many options for what they want to do. Terran was a little hit or miss (Hellbat and cyclone) but Liberator and widow mine were definitely good additions. Watching TvZ feels like you're watching the same game as in WoL but evolved, with more wrinkles.
Protoss was appraised and Blizz thought, "eh, they're fine, let's just patch a few small holes." So Protoss got Reaper and a Banshee/Observer hybrid. And no matter how well you think they perform those roles, they don't change how Protoss plays or much strategically beyond the openings. The Disruptor was a welcome addition, but it was just a replacement after the colossus got completely gutted. Oh, yeah. I guess the Tempest is a thing. The baneling buff patch after ByuN victory was HUGE. It should not be forgotten. I agree with removing tankivacs, and making reapers less strong than they were, but buffing a core unit like that "lasts forever". Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 03:45 CaRn1FeX wrote:On February 28 2022 00:52 Poopi wrote:
TvZ is still relatively loved but you feel that once lurkers are out it's just an uphill battle, and that queens basically counter everything which is also relatively bad design wise. Feels like you could easily replace with P and the statement is still valid to some degree. Lurkers make it very hard to play for both, Toss and Terran. Toss needs to switch to Skytoss to have a chance. Queens feel too strong and multi-purpose as well in PvZ Yeah, lurkers are a problem in PvZ too and they decided to fix that by buffing voidrays etc but air units being too strong usually make for horrible games in Starcraft 2, so this was probably a very bad solution. The good thing though, is that we have really seen how the map pool can hugely affect balance, since TvZ was in a good spot on the previous mappool, suggesting that balance was kinda fine, but it got really bad on the new map pool. Clem who was super dominant in TvZ got nerfed and other terrans as well. Maru being godlike made it look like it was somewhat balanced by beating good zergs, but he was still saying TvZ was difficult in his interview, and we saw in the most important tournament that zergs indeed adapted. If balance can swing that much with maps, that means that we can make a fun / good design game, try to tune it to be relatively balanced / change things up if necessary, and use maps very carefully as a way to balance things out even more. TL;DR: if Blizzard / whoever has the power keep investing a bit into the game (and not just financially), this could be promising.
Lots of map makers don't think balance is their problem. It's much easier to just nerf zerg than try to get them to make maps a certain way to make the game balanced. Don't forget that the dominance of Zerg in premier tournaments and world championships has been 5 years at this point so it's not just this one map pool.
|
Czech Republic12108 Posts
On February 28 2022 06:20 honorablemacroterran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 03:51 Poopi wrote:On February 27 2022 20:38 Jerubaal wrote:
It's kind of interesting, looking back, at the perception during WoL that Zerg just didn't have good units. In the two expansions afterwards, they've gotten so many goodies: ravager, viper, lurker. And you're seeing these units being used to great effect. Zerg has so many options for what they want to do. Terran was a little hit or miss (Hellbat and cyclone) but Liberator and widow mine were definitely good additions. Watching TvZ feels like you're watching the same game as in WoL but evolved, with more wrinkles.
Protoss was appraised and Blizz thought, "eh, they're fine, let's just patch a few small holes." So Protoss got Reaper and a Banshee/Observer hybrid. And no matter how well you think they perform those roles, they don't change how Protoss plays or much strategically beyond the openings. The Disruptor was a welcome addition, but it was just a replacement after the colossus got completely gutted. Oh, yeah. I guess the Tempest is a thing. The baneling buff patch after ByuN victory was HUGE. It should not be forgotten. I agree with removing tankivacs, and making reapers less strong than they were, but buffing a core unit like that "lasts forever". On February 28 2022 03:45 CaRn1FeX wrote:On February 28 2022 00:52 Poopi wrote:
TvZ is still relatively loved but you feel that once lurkers are out it's just an uphill battle, and that queens basically counter everything which is also relatively bad design wise. Feels like you could easily replace with P and the statement is still valid to some degree. Lurkers make it very hard to play for both, Toss and Terran. Toss needs to switch to Skytoss to have a chance. Queens feel too strong and multi-purpose as well in PvZ Yeah, lurkers are a problem in PvZ too and they decided to fix that by buffing voidrays etc but air units being too strong usually make for horrible games in Starcraft 2, so this was probably a very bad solution. The good thing though, is that we have really seen how the map pool can hugely affect balance, since TvZ was in a good spot on the previous mappool, suggesting that balance was kinda fine, but it got really bad on the new map pool. Clem who was super dominant in TvZ got nerfed and other terrans as well. Maru being godlike made it look like it was somewhat balanced by beating good zergs, but he was still saying TvZ was difficult in his interview, and we saw in the most important tournament that zergs indeed adapted. If balance can swing that much with maps, that means that we can make a fun / good design game, try to tune it to be relatively balanced / change things up if necessary, and use maps very carefully as a way to balance things out even more. TL;DR: if Blizzard / whoever has the power keep investing a bit into the game (and not just financially), this could be promising. Lots of map makers don't think balance is their problem. It's much easier to just nerf zerg than try to get them to make maps a certain way to make the game balanced. Don't forget that the dominance of Zerg in premier tournaments and world championships has been 5 years at this point so it's not just this one map pool.
At the same time basically every map pool had one of the "zerg" maps which was widely accepted as a goto veto in XvZ where X is P or T, so while you're right, having 1:0 lead in a BO7 is big. Also forcing your opponent to veto 1 map otherwise they most probably lose it is big too.
|
nerf the baneling and call it a day
|
Northern Ireland18072 Posts
The map pool is too small for how long it’s in rotation. I think it’s too small in general but given how long the pool is the pool it really exacerbates things.
For one, blatant examples, or obvious flaws are one thing. Over time as players grind out on the maps, new metas evolved even the initially balanced maps can flip out and be skewed. But you’re stuck on that pool for ages.
Secondly with so few maps, players are going to have to play on outright bad maps for matchups, frequently. There aren’t enough maps to veto all the bad ones out. I still don’t know what the fuck Maru was thinking not vetoing Pride of Altaris, but case in point if he’d have made grand finals in the year’s biggest tournament, well Bo7 bro you’ve gotta play it.
Thirdly, this absurdly small pool completely destroys experimentation. It’s not the mapmaker’s fault. The playerbase is extremely risk averse so stock standard cookie cutter variants that are meant to be OK in all matchups is what gets picked. Also not the voting public’s fault because you’re getting a small pool for months and months, so even a few dud maps bring much pain.
I wasn’t even shitting on Pride earlier, it’s actually a good map but borderline unplayable at the elite level in TvZ
Some of the map architecture to make for a map that’s good for non-Skytoss PvZ, namely a lot of relatively closed areas to manouvere around and shark within reach of bases. Well you can’t really experiment with that, because such a map will just equal death to tank pushes in PvT
Hell even cool maps like Golden Wall get kicked out for yet another similar-ish map
The mapmakers can actually deliver but they’re not given the chance through this baffling approach to maps.
-Double the pool
-Double vetos
-Keep one non-standard build in the rotation
-Have a map specifically built for PvZ
-Have a map specifically built for TvZ
-Have a map specifically built for PvT
-Rest of maps can follow the relative standard template, with the same ratio of macro/rush variants
You still keep stability, but you create space for both genuine variety too. You can also experiment, with useful data on how the patch values/map design is impacting or can be used to rebalance.
|
Yea maps kind of suck but what really sucks more then that is how terrible Gateway units are. Probably time to start really considering buffing the Adept or changing the stats to make it not instant kill workers but needs 35 fucking shots to kill a singular roach despite costing 25 minerals more.
Zealots seem okay even though Zealot Speed would probably make them a bit more micro friendly and not just widow mine fodder.
Stalkers still seem....also okay, kind of shitty before Blink but they do get a pretty big power spike after that.
Sentries, ehh they haven't aged well but Guardian Shield is still potent and force fields still seem at least mildly usable.
Adepts? They cost 25 gas (1 vespene = 4 minerals) so that means they cost 200 minerals all together, that means that 1 Adept must kill 4 drones to even break even, and I cannot even remember the last time that happened.
They should shift the stats of the Adept, make it a more general purpose unit that kind of bridges the gap between Zealots for meat shield and Stalkers for precision blink strikes/AA. Shift the damage to be stronger vs. Roaches and Queens but weaker against Zerglings and Drones.
Zealots already deal with Zerglings just fine, so why would the only unit in the Zerg arsenal that the Adept be good against be the Zergling? Stalkers trade terrible with Roaches before Blink and Zealots can be kited, maybe make the Adept so that a pure Gateway force can actually launch an assault on a Zerg and not be shit kicked in by pure Roach.
|
On February 28 2022 00:52 Poopi wrote:
More important than "just" balance, the game design / game being fun, across all levels of plays, with still means to display skills and separate the good from the great at the top level.
True. And in my opinion, SC2 is a very very high skill ceiling, hardcore and very very difficult to play game, with a lot of irritating and difficult to counter mechanics. The end result is that while I love to watch the game, there is no fucking way you are going to entice me to play the 1v1 competitive version of the game.
Imo, the major problem is that the game is just not fun competitively.
|
On February 28 2022 08:34 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Yea maps kind of suck but what really sucks more then that is how terrible Gateway units are. Probably time to start really considering buffing the Adept or changing the stats to make it not instant kill workers but needs 35 fucking shots to kill a singular roach despite costing 25 minerals more.
Zealots seem okay even though Zealot Speed would probably make them a bit more micro friendly and not just widow mine fodder.
Stalkers still seem....also okay, kind of shitty before Blink but they do get a pretty big power spike after that.
Sentries, ehh they haven't aged well but Guardian Shield is still potent and force fields still seem at least mildly usable.
Adepts? They cost 25 gas (1 vespene = 4 minerals) so that means they cost 200 minerals all together, that means that 1 Adept must kill 4 drones to even break even, and I cannot even remember the last time that happened.
They should shift the stats of the Adept, make it a more general purpose unit that kind of bridges the gap between Zealots for meat shield and Stalkers for precision blink strikes/AA. Shift the damage to be stronger vs. Roaches and Queens but weaker against Zerglings and Drones.
Zealots already deal with Zerglings just fine, so why would the only unit in the Zerg arsenal that the Adept be good against be the Zergling? Stalkers trade terrible with Roaches before Blink and Zealots can be kited, maybe make the Adept so that a pure Gateway force can actually launch an assault on a Zerg and not be shit kicked in by pure Roach.
Normalizing Adept damage and then giving them upgrades/changing their upgrades in order to make them legitimate fighting units would be lovely. Maybe make Adepts require Twilight Council. Muta style bounce damage. Whatever needs to be done to see Gateway units be worthwhile on their own.
Maybe give them a Marine-style damage profile of fast attack speed low damage.
Shade can go, or be changed, or what have you.
|
What aspects of maps do you think would make balance better? I'm not sure what would help protoss. It used to be the prevailing wisdom that wider spread out bases were better for zerg, but close bases makes the Queen brigade that much more effective. And spread out bases make terran drops better.
|
On February 28 2022 11:27 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 08:34 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Yea maps kind of suck but what really sucks more then that is how terrible Gateway units are. Probably time to start really considering buffing the Adept or changing the stats to make it not instant kill workers but needs 35 fucking shots to kill a singular roach despite costing 25 minerals more.
Zealots seem okay even though Zealot Speed would probably make them a bit more micro friendly and not just widow mine fodder.
Stalkers still seem....also okay, kind of shitty before Blink but they do get a pretty big power spike after that.
Sentries, ehh they haven't aged well but Guardian Shield is still potent and force fields still seem at least mildly usable.
Adepts? They cost 25 gas (1 vespene = 4 minerals) so that means they cost 200 minerals all together, that means that 1 Adept must kill 4 drones to even break even, and I cannot even remember the last time that happened.
They should shift the stats of the Adept, make it a more general purpose unit that kind of bridges the gap between Zealots for meat shield and Stalkers for precision blink strikes/AA. Shift the damage to be stronger vs. Roaches and Queens but weaker against Zerglings and Drones.
Zealots already deal with Zerglings just fine, so why would the only unit in the Zerg arsenal that the Adept be good against be the Zergling? Stalkers trade terrible with Roaches before Blink and Zealots can be kited, maybe make the Adept so that a pure Gateway force can actually launch an assault on a Zerg and not be shit kicked in by pure Roach. Normalizing Adept damage and then giving them upgrades/changing their upgrades in order to make them legitimate fighting units would be lovely. Maybe make Adepts require Twilight Council. Muta style bounce damage. Whatever needs to be done to see Gateway units be worthwhile on their own. Maybe give them a Marine-style damage profile of fast attack speed low damage. Shade can go, or be changed, or what have you.
I think there is alot of ways to change the Adept to make it stronger, I don't mind their slow ponderous attack with a speed upgrade at Twilight but the attack should probably be tuned towards being more effective at killing things other then just drones and zerlings and to be honest, Adepts don't even do a great job at killing lings in the first place. The only time I see Adepts trade decently vs. lings is when they're in between mineral patches which is just another thing that limits their overall effectiveness.
"Whatever needs to be done to see Gateway units be worthwhile on their own."
See there is the thing, I don't think that Gateway units will ever or should ever be designed to be worthwhile on their own. But you should be able to mix and match them in different proportions and be allowed to have some type of a presence on the map. Zealots and Sentries should need Adepts to enable them (make Adepts more adept at killing Roaches) just like Adepts should need Zealots up front tanking zergling damage (Zealots and Sentries already good at killing lings).
I'm not insinuating that we should turn the Adept into the next marine which we all know is probably the strongest and most versatile tier 1 unit in the game, but it should at LEAST be good enough to let Protoss actually get out there and make some non Stargate action happen.
If Protoss was able to pressure Zerg effectively on the ground, then Zerg wouldn't be able to rush straight into Hive and Lurkers in the first place. I think alot of the reason that Lurkers seem so damn strong besides their damage is just how fast a greedy Zerg can tech up to them. If the Zerg's tech and economy were able to be checked more reliably by early/mid game Gateway armies ie. they would have to invest more in defense then just mass Queen with some lings and roaches sprinkled in, Lurkers would at least hit the field later, giving Protoss more time to tech to mass Immortal/Templar/Skytoss/whatever.
It's why Hellion/Banshee is so standard in TvZ, it let's the Terran get out on the map and exert control. Currently, Protoss has no way to accomplish this, allowing the Zerg to grow their economy relatively unchecked. Fixing the Adept could fix this problem without even necessitating a Queen nerf.
|
Protoss Gateway units should be as viable as Marines Marauders Zerglings Roaches and Ravagets, Protoss can’t escape being sharp and brittle without having a base of reliable core units, if the flashy tech AoE needs to go down Im good for that, but I firmly believe that Protoss needs to not be dead in the water without it’s expensive tech units and I don’t see how that’s possible without a Gateway backbone being less impotent on its own
I see Protoss Gateway being more about having a good mix like with Marines and Marauders, striking a balance between Adepts, Stalkers, and Zealots as suits your opponents army, how to balance to make that happen I don’t strictly know, but my initial thought is to have a medium core unit that’s always pretty okay and then two more specialized units that compliment the medium core unit.
I’m not saying Protoss Gateway should be an entirely viable strategy on its own (before HT anyways) but it should be good through til that stage of tech is reached and Gateway armies definitely shouldn’t be so weak when their tech units are dead, if the Gateway core is fundamentally feasible if not amazing then that lets the Protoss roam more without having to retreat and turtle because half the Colossi are down
|
So i'm wondering -- does anyone here think PvT is imbalanced? I don't think it is honestly, like in lategame PvT even against Maru it always feels like the toss has a decent chance to win.
Meanwhile lategame PvZ against Serral just feels completely doomed.
|
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more.
|
Czech Republic12108 Posts
On February 28 2022 14:53 angry_maia wrote:
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more.
Well, the issue is that Marauders and their shells exist.
|
Northern Ireland18072 Posts
On February 28 2022 11:41 Jerubaal wrote:
What aspects of maps do you think would make balance better? I'm not sure what would help protoss. It used to be the prevailing wisdom that wider spread out bases were better for zerg, but close bases makes the Queen brigade that much more effective. And spread out bases make terran drops better.
Not building maps for all matchups, IMO.
How the bases are laid out I’m not sure, a good Protoss Non-Skytoss map you’re probably talking multiple paths, with some paths being tighter and chokier, so Protoss can shark across the map into decent positions
Maybe make the safe paths have the slower routes and wind a bit vs the more open fields, so there’s a risk-reward there.
Maybe you lay the natural third base in such a location that it’s nested back away from your opponent, and not expanding closer towards your opponent.
It could still be as open to regular pushes and runbys as a standard third location, but you could buy even a little time in travel distance. That’s basically an arbitrary specifically anti-Queen walk measure.
I’m not a mapmaker, decent player or sensible human being though, so take these with a pinch of salt.
As I alluded to, while I’m not sure what a good PvZ map looks like, I think we’re hamstrung by maps having to be good XvX maps. A map that has sufficient nooks and crannies for Protoss ground to roam slightly more safely is going to have tons of potential for fiendish tank setups, so might be a bad PvT map at the same time, or be too good for TvZ.
The middle of the road map design we have now is probably going to slightly favour Zerg almost by default. They want open spaces and a longer rush distance most of the time in both matchups.
Depending on the matchup and game state Terran/Protoss will want both open/closed areas and short/long rush or large/small maps.
TvPs a good example of the swings here. Terran enjoys tight spaces to funnel Toss into and Protoss bases being split far apart in the midgame push/harassment phase, so they can pick them apart when Toss have limited units to defend 3/4 bases.
This rather flips when lategame kicks in and Protoss have money to burn. Splitting against AoE and setting up surrounds suddenly more open arenas are preferable, and Terran is now the race subject to being pulled apart by harassment on the periphery.
I’m rambling a bit but what’s good in a map’s for ZvT is generally speaking good for ZvP. I think in a manner that’s not quite the same with P and Ts matchups
|
just put some terran favoured maps in so maru can G5L, then we can close down sc2 esports and be done with it
|
On February 28 2022 21:24 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 14:53 angry_maia wrote:
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more. Well, the issue is that Marauders and their shells exist.
Also stim and stutter step.
|
Czech Republic12108 Posts
On March 01 2022 11:41 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 21:24 deacon.frost wrote:On February 28 2022 14:53 angry_maia wrote:
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more. Well, the issue is that Marauders and their shells exist. Also stim and stutter step.
also lings on creep  Some units are crazy fast.
|
Northern Ireland18072 Posts
On March 01 2022 11:41 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2022 21:24 deacon.frost wrote:On February 28 2022 14:53 angry_maia wrote:
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more. Well, the issue is that Marauders and their shells exist. Also stim and stutter step.
I don’t think most Terrans will ever concede that having insanely microable, high DPS stock units is a part of SC2’s base design issues.
|
On March 02 2022 01:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 11:41 Jerubaal wrote:On February 28 2022 21:24 deacon.frost wrote:On February 28 2022 14:53 angry_maia wrote:
Another question: what about reworking charge?
i personally think the charge upgrade is super stupid. It basically takes zealots, which in brood war had pretty decent amounts of micro potential (especially against zerglings and hydras), and removes ALL MICRO.
it seems like pros have decided that the best thing to do with zealots is just a-move them and maybe shift click on targets, nothing more. Well, the issue is that Marauders and their shells exist. Also stim and stutter step. I don’t think most Terrans will ever concede that having insanely microable, high DPS stock units is a part of SC2’s base design issues.
It may be tricker to balance a game with such units but to be frank marine and ling really feel great and relevant whole game long. It would be awesome to have similarly strong and versatile and easily available unit in protoss Arsenal. The staple zealot nor stalker cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
