|
On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 19:38 PartingFan wrote:On August 30 2023 19:31 Charoisaur wrote:On August 30 2023 19:26 PartingFan wrote:On August 30 2023 19:21 Charoisaur wrote:On August 30 2023 18:31 PartingFan wrote:
Without going into change details, the communication and transparency have been very bad overall.
Some big complaints:
- This is supposed to be a "Community" patch but we don't know who is responsible for the changes, how they come up with them, or who makes the final decisions. ESPECIALLY when all pros on the council are claiming they only know a very small part of the final patch.
- No mention of the patching timelines. Is this going to be the only patch for another year, or they will have chances to gradually fine-tune the balance? If the former is true, then they are absolutely INSANE to go with the changes they propose.
Again, the last patch destroyed the game's balance for more than a year, but there are absolutely no mentions of how they plan to not repeat it. Ironically this "Community" patch is a total black box to the community, they are acting like Blizzard's game design team while they are not. I can actually 100% understand that, given how much every change gets flamed, if you go on reddit you can find lots of name-calling towards the balance council, calling them morons, clowns or worse. Nobody wants to be the new David Kim. And given how many absolutely terrible balance suggestions I read here and on reddit, and how clueless the community in general is about balance (remember Zerg cabal memes into TvT finals at Blizzcon) it's probably a wise approach to not listen too much to community feedback. Exactly, the purpose is not to have another DK, no single person to decide the fate of the game. But the decision-making process should be clear to the community. And please read my post again, I'm not suggesting to take community opinions either. Please don't direct this transparency conversation that way. Well, doesn't matter if it's one guy or a group of people, due to the way the community is, nobody wants their name associated with being responsible for the decisions. Scarlett got a lot of hate last patch, just because Harstem said she came up with some of the changes Why do you keep mentioning that point about names? Names are unimportant. Read up on the Michelin star system. Everybody knows how it works, nobody knows who the inspectors are. As of now nobody in the community knows how the Balance Council works. No thought process was shared. No decision-making process either. They just throw a patch at the community's face and tell them to try it. It is totally pointless to judge a patch if we know nothing about the reasonings behind and what are the follow-up plans. What's left for you to know that doesn't include names? We already know a group of 50-60 pros discuss the changes in their discord and then some of them decide on which ones to implement. I guess the exact amount of people making the final decision would be interesting, but something tells me that wouldn't satisfy you.
The problem is to get three retired players identified to each race, it s expensive but at least you will have someone to answer in the name of each races. If only Scarlett represents the whole changes, it s pretty sure complains will come from T and P
|
On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote:
What's left for you to know that doesn't include names?
- Decision-making process, design choices, and you know, EVERYTHING in a design process?
I see no reason for them not to publish the whole design doc if they ever have any:
+ Background: How they judge the Current state of the game
+ Goals: Detailed goals of what they want to achieve
+ Pre-existing solution: What they tried in the last patch, what worked, what failed
+ Alternative solutions: All the proposals they have considered and rejected, and why
+ Propose solutions: This patch
+ Monitoring: What they want to watch in PTR. LOL at "just go test it and let us know what you think"???
+ Open questions:
+ Timeline: What are the follow-up plans AFTER this patch goes live?
Instead, we got thrown into our face 4 sentences of very generalized goals, and 4 pages of solutions. That is NOT the way to gain the community's trust.
I am sure most of the community posts, even what we suggest here, are just overlapping with what they already considered. What a colossal waste of time for everybody.
On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote:
We already know a group of 50-60 pros discuss the changes in their discord and then some of them decide on which ones to implement.
LOL, re-read your own post again. I have nothing else to say to you if you think this is anywhere near the level of transparency we need.
Anyhow, you seem to not read my posts nor try to understand what I mean. Others like Lyyna have said it better than I could. No point in me answering you further 
|
I think cyclones were just fine how they were before
|
I dislike the infestor changes.Reducing fungal damage and range removes (what I feel) their main purpose, which is cost effective crowd control. Cheeky burrowed infestors alone will be less likely to catch a muta flock or a bunch of marines, which is play I love to see.
As for the widow mine change: I hate them already, this will make me hate them more.
|
Any patches that “buff” mines should be deleted instantly
That unit is a cancer as much as Swarm host.
|
Hi Sc2 Community
The Cyclone change makes MECH safer early on which is fine. OP vs Zerg of course but it will take some finetuning of course. (Is that maybe alrdy arranged ?) I know turtle MECH is not super popular at the very top of the scene, but for us mortal its not that fun to play against. a maxed out MECH Army. (That will now be the perfect and natural transition for every turtle in the world. ^^ )
I have a nice sugestion though why not try to make a odd number of expansions like 13/15 etc. If Zerg gets 7 and all the other one gets like 6 that would be kinda fair, right  ? Right now we have to take two more than the Terrans and also break into their part of the map, which is literaly imposssible at that stage vs a 120-150 Army Supply of MECH/Ghost.
It would be so fun if they could also make MECH vs Protoss viable, which tends to be the main goal here with the cyclone and to buff MECH as a whole. The problem seems to be that the Tier 1 units of Protoss is to good vs MECH. Zealots with Charge/Stalkers/Phoenix seems to be fine.
The Ghost nerf was a step in right direction but is still OP vs both races. 4 units can take away half of the life of a whole Protoss army is just insane. 15-25% less damage. vs Shield seems reasonable. Snipe is also OP in high lvl game. You see all it all the time as soon as there is 10 plus ghost out, people stop making Tier 3 units and if they also have like Thor/Hellbat and some tanks. Switching back to like ling/bane/hydra also seems a bit funky. Ghost is owning all good Zerg units, and cut the Toss army in half.....Thor/Tanks/Maurader/Libs all alrdy counter Ultra. Thor vs Broods isnt even close. (No idea, why they nerfed the BL again ) ( yeah i know they buffed the speed so they now beat a Hellbat in 100 M ).
I also see people complain about the amazing thing that Infestors now have 75 energy at start. Do they forget that the damage output is half of what it use to be. Just the buff with energy seems fine to me.
|
I was very positive when i saw Cyclones but now i know something is going wrong
- It s hard to legit Cyclones place while Hellions being less effective overall even if their cost is 50 gas more.
- I feel they have been created to fill a place (good intention) but they are far better than Hellions in end game.
There are some standard to respect in Terran and Protoss designs and The game face now two serious problem :
- Stalkers are armored but their speed is fast with teleport (most light armored units are designed to be cheaper but fast)
- Armor tags are unbalanced, there is not enought light armored units (what we are seeing with the addition of cyclones a new armored unit)
Stalkers have to be light armored units, their statistics should be tweaked in consequence.
|
Somewhat negative. As in I'm glad they're making shields and carapace cheaper.
The raven change is nice. I don't care about the WM change, it's a difference of what, 1/3 a second? In general they're just making units responsive which is a good thing.
The cyclone change won't go through. I hope.
Hydra timings seem like a problem but it all depends on what they do with the protoss midgame, and this is what's kind of embarassing. Nerfing the mothership into the ground and making it easier to build is not going to make protoss pick fleetbeacon before robo bay.
If they really want cloaking spells off FB supporting ground armies to be a PvZ midgame thing, make it a FB research and give it to the oracle. Move revelation off energy onto a cooldown. Put a stalker anti air range +1 research on the cyber core and make it unlocked by TC or TA so you can actually zone detection in non-mirrors.
Actual fragility adjustments? Make HT warp in with 65 energy so they don't sit in the nat with 70 and watch the third burn on a counter attack. And above AA range. Tune colossus up against marauders just a little. I'd say make immortals cheaper again but then PvZ has problems so idk.
|
I think the cyclone is just fine as it is, and doesn't need changes. Honestly, I think the balance of the game is good enough as it is, and any changes they make should have a really good reason. I think we prefer no changes to poorly thought out changes.
|
I feel awesome that we are even getting patches in the first place, let alone ambitious ones that redesign units.
That being said, I don't feel awesome about all the changes, the Cyclone in particular. Imo the focus of them should be so that mech can have a reliable anti-air to cover tanks without needing Vikings or Thors, not to make them an all around skirmish unit or a factory produced marine.
The direction they are going with it currently? Eh, I just don't know if I see it, I've watched the balance tournament and the Cyclone just leaves me feeling meh.
The nerfs are okay, EMP, Lurker speed, Baneling nerf is low key a pretty big nerf that's going to just flat out lower Zerg strength in both match ups so I'm okay with it.
The immortal change is nice! The MS change is....just why? I'm sure Protoss would love if Ground Toss could get a bone thrown it's way, that would really shake the meta up.
Keep testing this patch, there shouldn't be a rush.
|
On August 31 2023 08:04 PartingFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote:
What's left for you to know that doesn't include names?
- Decision-making process, design choices, and you know, EVERYTHING in a design process? I see no reason for them not to publish the whole design doc if they ever have any: + Background: How they judge the Current state of the game + Goals: Detailed goals of what they want to achieve + Pre-existing solution: What they tried in the last patch, what worked, what failed + Alternative solutions: All the proposals they have considered and rejected, and why + Propose solutions: This patch + Monitoring: What they want to watch in PTR. LOL at "just go test it and let us know what you think"??? + Open questions: + Timeline: What are the follow-up plans AFTER this patch goes live? Instead, we got thrown into our face 4 sentences of very generalized goals, and 4 pages of solutions. That is NOT the way to gain the community's trust. I am sure most of the community posts, even what we suggest here, are just overlapping with what they already considered. What a colossal waste of time for everybody. Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote:
We already know a group of 50-60 pros discuss the changes in their discord and then some of them decide on which ones to implement.
LOL, re-read your own post again. I have nothing else to say to you if you think this is anywhere near the level of transparency we need. Anyhow, you seem to not read my posts nor try to understand what I mean. Others like Lyyna have said it better than I could. No point in me answering you further
the game is no longer in Blizzard's hands. I suggest lowering your standards. Blizzard did an off-the-charts amazing job on the game.
The game is not going to get substantially better. It'll either stay about the same or get worse. These well meaning volunteers and the structures and processes in place are no where near as good as what Blizzard put together as they designed and tweaked the game from 2007 to 2015.
Fortunately, the campaign and co-op won't be altered by the balance council so those aspects of the game will remain amazing.
Hopefully, the game doesn't get worse. It definitely won't get better.
You've made a few references to software development. Lemme tell ya, when you are feeding your family and paying your mortgage based off of the quality of the software you produce... your intensity and effort are at a totally different level. It does not compare to the effort and intensity a volunteer puts forward. Joseph Staten slept under his desk. Bob Fitch made the SC1 engine by himself locked away in a room. Without that level of intensity and crunch you'll never make anything as great as the stuff Bungie and Blizzard produced in their "hey day".
I hope I'm wrong and I hope the balance council makes the best version of SC2 ever.
|
On September 01 2023 21:17 _fool wrote:
I dislike the infestor changes.Reducing fungal damage and range removes (what I feel) their main purpose, which is cost effective crowd control. Cheeky burrowed infestors alone will be less likely to catch a muta flock or a bunch of marines, which is play I love to see.
As for the widow mine change: I hate them already, this will make me hate them more.
The cloaked infestor is very OP, it is almost impossible to spot its movement on the ground, while a unit like a DT or a Observer is very easy to spot. This is one of the reason infestor is way to strong, 1 fungal can win you the game in a 200/200 end game army fight. Same with Viper way to easy to use for how cost efficient it is. SHould also have been nerfed ages ago but you know how it is , Blizzard loves its ZVZ finals
|
|
|
My only complaint is that protoss doesn't get a new toy to have fun with, sure we got the mothership change but that's not standard gameplay. I wanted some new upgrades for gateway units to play around with.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:21 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 18:31 PartingFan wrote:
Without going into change details, the communication and transparency have been very bad overall.
Some big complaints:
- This is supposed to be a "Community" patch but we don't know who is responsible for the changes, how they come up with them, or who makes the final decisions. ESPECIALLY when all pros on the council are claiming they only know a very small part of the final patch.
- No mention of the patching timelines. Is this going to be the only patch for another year, or they will have chances to gradually fine-tune the balance? If the former is true, then they are absolutely INSANE to go with the changes they propose.
Again, the last patch destroyed the game's balance for more than a year, but there are absolutely no mentions of how they plan to not repeat it. Ironically this "Community" patch is a total black box to the community, they are acting like Blizzard's game design team while they are not. I can actually 100% understand that, given how much every change gets flamed, if you go on reddit you can find lots of name-calling towards the balance council, calling them morons, clowns or worse. Nobody wants to be the new David Kim. And given how many absolutely terrible balance suggestions I read here and on reddit, and how clueless the community in general is about balance (remember Zerg cabal memes into TvT finals at Blizzcon) it's probably a wise approach to not listen too much to community feedback. Honestly, what use would it have to you to know who makes the final decision, except having someone to flame?
Yeah, outside of one or two person who can use their place at the balance council as a way to engage with their audience (like Harstem), I don't think anyone would want to get flamed forever if they can avoid it.
With that said, it does feel like we're at sea without a captain at time. Its get hard to follow who make the decision and who's opinion get taken into consideration and who's dosen't.
In any case, it's a small miracle SC2 is still getting patch in 2023, so I certainly won't complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
