|
On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
|
The Street Fighter developers inserted their own comments in every balance change when they released patches for the game. Maybe the SC2 developers could do the same?
|
Much of the balance is yet to play out and speculating is usually silly since these need to actually be tested. There are 2 things I would like to see, which is mostly QOL tho would also effect balance:
1. Worker AI stops overriding commands on mineral patches unless theres other mineral patches shared by the same CC/Hatch/Nexus with less workers. IE if you have 8 workers (1 on each node) and put a 9th on a larger mineral node sometimes it will change to another and you have to click it to the node multiple times (usually done with rapid fire or right clicking). With this proposed change, this would no longer be the case and would only ever override if you try to put 2 on a node when theres another mineral patch with 0 workers mining (or 3 with another having 1). The other proposed option would be to only have the workers bounce when theres already 2 workers at a mineral patch. The minigame of balancing your workers at the start is an APM sink we would otherwise not have but I find it a very tedious thing to do, I feel like the AI here could be improved.
2. For lower leagues we are changing the attack priorities of the interceptor and oracle stasis to make them work better for lower league players who A move. Why are we not also changing the priority of the widow mine? This will nerf terran and may require other terran buffs at pro level, but if we are focusing on making the game fun at lower leagues shouldn't we address the other elephant in the room at the same time?
|
12 years ago the patch note justification for reducing zealot shields by 10 was that "2 gate pressure was too strong at lower leagues," so I doubt you'd get too much out of them posting why they are making a change.
Luckily the game doesn't have too much fundamentally broken with it nowadays but still blows my mind that they would ever use something that isn't top level play as reasoning behind a change. You could look into adjusting several QoL type things, unit interactions, or just unfun/heavy game swinging scenarios that players begrudgingly accept.
|
On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
|
I have made this post in error. I do however agree with a previous poster that Street Fighter developers lead by.example, in that balance decision-making processes ought to be comment-documented, so the feedback can be surgical instead of generalized.
Furthermore On October 18 2018 18:24 Kaley wrote:Ultimate Balancing via a League of Testers who strive for providing superlative and Equal Amount of Dedication To All Facets ΔInvolves setting up a workshop with an identical, optimal training environment for highly suitable, dedicated and disciplined individuals to make their first contact with the game, grow their skill and duke it out, focusing on maximum long-term proficiency, spread out equally throughout races, ultimately reaching an intelligent conclusion on balance, suggesting sensible changes, adapting, rinse and repeat for a couple of decades.
|
On January 01 2023 07:18 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2022 16:22 Rexeus wrote:
Creep tumour should not give vision.
Lurkers should have a seige timer, like a seige tank.
EMP should not remove shields. my man wants to start a revolution. While simple in concept those 3 changes you propose can make an entire new game. Call it sc3
Only Lurker idea is ok, the two other are too drastic even if it seems reasonnable to avoid a mandatory unit like the ghost and his ability to entirelly remove shield of protoss. If you completely remove vision from tumors you can t cast it because you need location vision to spam the spell, so even if i agree with this one, you should add a trick to work out.
|
Always happy to see an attempt to make Zerg feel swarmier, and speed and sizing buffs accomplish this.
Also happy to see shield batteries and carriers toned down as they make for shitty gameplay.
Can high level players comment on the state of ZvP? This patch seems to reflect a belief that P is too strong vs. Z at the moment.
|
On January 01 2023 18:12 GoSuNamhciR wrote:
Much of the balance is yet to play out and speculating is usually silly since these need to actually be tested. There are 2 things I would like to see, which is mostly QOL tho would also effect balance:
1. Worker AI stops overriding commands on mineral patches unless theres other mineral patches shared by the same CC/Hatch/Nexus with less workers. IE if you have 8 workers (1 on each node) and put a 9th on a larger mineral node sometimes it will change to another and you have to click it to the node multiple times (usually done with rapid fire or right clicking). With this proposed change, this would no longer be the case and would only ever override if you try to put 2 on a node when theres another mineral patch with 0 workers mining (or 3 with another having 1). The other proposed option would be to only have the workers bounce when theres already 2 workers at a mineral patch. The minigame of balancing your workers at the start is an APM sink we would otherwise not have but I find it a very tedious thing to do, I feel like the AI here could be improved.
2. For lower leagues we are changing the attack priorities of the interceptor and oracle stasis to make them work better for lower league players who A move. Why are we not also changing the priority of the widow mine? This will nerf terran and may require other terran buffs at pro level, but if we are focusing on making the game fun at lower leagues shouldn't we address the other elephant in the room at the same time? The meme answer to your second question is that Blizzard does not make changes that significantly help Protoss in any matchup.
|
On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
|
On January 02 2023 16:26 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves.
Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions.
Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent.
|
On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
Accountability?
This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
|
On January 02 2023 19:33 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 16:26 Melliflue wrote:On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow. While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves. Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions. Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent.
Reading your takes so far, they're not missing much by not talking to the "community".
|
On January 02 2023 20:51 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. Accountability? This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
Just a video game
...which is the livelihood of many people
|
On January 02 2023 20:55 syndbg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 19:33 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On January 02 2023 16:26 Melliflue wrote:On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow. While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves. Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions. Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent. Reading your takes so far, they're not missing much by not talking to the "community".
They're not the ones missing out, we're the ones missing out, and I'm not the only one in the community. They already contributed their opinions and ideas to the patch, so they already got everything they wanted.
Blizzard is also the one missing out, because the players are the ones who support and buy their games, and it's in their best interest to keep people happy. They understand the importance of including explanations and comments on patch notes, which is why they've done that for many years, until now.
We have the right to be upset at the lack of explanations, especially when we (and so many) are very disappointed with the proposed patch.
Can you imagine if TL held map contests without making the judges known? Especially if some of the judges are map makers who submitted to the contests themselves?
|
On January 02 2023 20:51 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. Accountability? This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
Except this "video game" has millions of dollars in prize money involved. So yeah, accountability and transparency are needed for it.
|
On January 02 2023 16:26 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:03 Athenau wrote:On January 01 2023 16:31 Melliflue wrote:On December 31 2022 21:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote:
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
+ Show Spoiler +
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible.
Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts).
If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack).
I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now.
If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder. Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing. When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
Yup.
Even here on TL in this thread, which is tame by internet standards, there's been a lot of personal shit flung at the balance team and the supposed `Zerg cabal'.
There are issues with the patch (although I do personally like a lot of the overall direction, but the Zerg favoredness is an issue), but that would always be the case for any such patch. Making it easier to directly flame the pros and community members who contributed would be bad in multiple ways - and is just straight up unfair and unnecessary.
|
Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IiP7NeC.png)
|
On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote:Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
Where are these changes listed?
|
On January 03 2023 00:27 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote:Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ. Where are these changes listed?
Ingame (live) balance mod `5.0.11 BalanceTest`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
