EPThttps://old.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/15y47y3/competitive_mappool_balance_update_test_september/
How do you feel about the proposed balance changes from ES…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net129 Posts
https://old.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/15y47y3/competitive_mappool_balance_update_test_september/ | ||
|
Kitai
United States868 Posts
| ||
|
QOGQOG
828 Posts
| ||
|
teapot_
39 Posts
| ||
Poopi
France12761 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
The rest of the changes seem alright, especially Ghost, Baneling, Disruptor | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
I like the consistency changes for sizes on minimap, and some of the changes are good common sense (banes not 1-shotting probes, slower lurkers, immortals having a way to buffer EMP). I hate with a burning passion the infestor changes, and the mine change. What the actual **** went through someone's mind that led to `the widowmine needs to be better at surviving'. It's asinine. The viper change is also dumb. We are buffing (even if negligibly) the overtuned Zerg caster and totally murdering the one we apparently are trying to see more of? Was microbial shroud not enough of a joke? Trying to make mech viable vs Protoss by giving it a rollerblading mech marine is probably not it. Hydra buff is weird, and overall some of the changes feel like they create strong ZvP timings, which I'm skeptical of. Making improvements and changes largely to skytoss is also just not a direction I like, even if the changes themselves are likely not all that impactful. Oh, also midgame ZvT is going to be totally ****ed. It's gonna be a rough time for Zerg. | ||
|
PartingFan
17 Posts
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 think what went wrong and plan to not repeat it. In software development language, no post-mortems. 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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
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? | ||
|
PartingFan
17 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:21 Charoisaur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:26 PartingFan wrote: 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 | ||
|
PartingFan
17 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:31 Charoisaur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:38 PartingFan wrote: 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. | ||
|
tigera6
3219 Posts
| ||
|
Tsubbi
Germany7967 Posts
Maybe slight adjustments to the game and qol changes is what should be focussed on again, thats how the council started in the first place. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
Already made a few comments in the other thread (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/615481-new-sc2-balance-test-mod-along-with-new-map-pool?page=5#84 in particular) so gonna try to keep it shortish ( edit : oops... ) - Cyclone change is terrible and doesn't address any of mech issues in TvP, or even in other matchups where it is quite rare in the current meta. At best, it will hide issues behind an OP unit that is so strong that any other flaw of the strategy matters... and then, why make any other unit ? - Cyclone already feels several niches, both as part of several early game openings, both defensives and offensives, which are both very commonly used in all matchups and as a rarely-but-not-never seen cornerstone of battlemech. It can be said that the current unit is quite balanced and then why change it specifically ? - It is similar in essence to the previous "reactored cyclone" iteration in attempting to """"fix"""" mech with an all purpose, somewhat cheap,fast "frontline bruiser" able to fight in the early game efficiently, and covering for the slower and more expensive tanks in a role akin to BW vultures & goliaths. That change ended up doing nothing of the sort ; the unit was either not made at all since bio was overall better/more fleshed out, or as people who experimented with it quickly realized, simply made in large numbers without any other mechanical units, resulting in dull, mono unit games involving large clumps of cyclones just smashing into things and standing there doing their pewpew thing. What part of this change is supposed to prevent the same situation ? - This new version is even worse, since instead of "just" being tanky, high attack damage, and moderately fast, it also retains the powerful kiting capability of lockons and can be made even faster. So you get an unit that is both a very strong direct figther, but is also able to deal considerable damage while staying out of harm's way, and is able to do so for a large period of time with relatively simple micro. How is that supposed to end ? What are, according to the councils, supposed to be the available counterplays available ? - PvT is not even in a good place right now ; why would terrans get even more tools there ? Why not first make PvT a better experience on both sides equally, THEN focus on the whole mech TvP thing, which by nature means large changes in how the matchup is played (if anything because now protoss will have to actively scout and react to terran compositions, rather than knowing that by the midgame, they'll face bio, just like they have been for over a decade now) ? Overall, it is my belief that - Whoever engineered this change has very little experience with mech play, particularly in TvP, besides a couple of occasional mech games on the ladder, and a moderate number of games in competition during the short periods when a specific meta/mappool favored it - As a result of it, they went for the lowest hanging fruit, and for something that would largely make mech "bio like" - high mobility, high damage, focused on skirmishing and being mobile, rather than anything evoking slow mech play. It feels terribly uninspired, lazy, and really trying to shoehorn it into the same existing niche as the standard strategy rather than actually changing thngs - It means the strategy has to directly compete in the same niche as bio, except with a more expensive infrastructure and no drops, replaced with more direct combat power... Which means that either it is much stronger than bio at fighting, and there is little reason to do other stuff, or it doesn't compete with bio in direct combat either after balancing, and then why wouldn't you just play bio if it's both better at fighting and can move better as well ? - In its current form, the cyclone will have to be nerfed, and there is a good chance it will swing the other way - meaning that we would lose the previous cyclone's usages without replacements, while having no reasons to use it compared to bio Their names are irrelevant ; it's not like there are thousands of professionals left in the game anyway, so most guesses would probably hit the mark of who is at least remotely involved with the council. However ,the utter lack of disclosing their reasonings, timelines, and potential other ideas considerably hurt the balance council's credibility, and make it seem like a revival of the early Blizzard balance team methods. I'm guessing we'll get a bunker build time change soon from them ? We don't know the relevant experience of the people behind it - and when it comes to something as niche as TvP mech, it is quite important ! We don't know what other changes were considered and rejected, and why We don't know what is the expected in-game result of the changing in concrete terms We don't know what is the reasoning behind settling on this We don't know what are they are considering if this change doesn't work out one way or another ; whether it is how long it would take for a new change to be made, or what kind of change could come Complete blackbox | ||
|
THERIDDLER
Canada116 Posts
| ||
|
Moonerz
United States442 Posts
Or is the goal to drastically rebalance the game in an attempt to fix some of the underlying issues? Obviously this has higher reward and higher risk as seen by the test cyclone being busted at the moment. If something like that was on the end patch of lotv like bl/infestor was for WoL it ruins replayability. | ||
|
Scarlett`
China2375 Posts
 | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:52 Charoisaur wrote: 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 | ||
|
PartingFan
17 Posts
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  | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
|
_fool
Netherlands675 Posts
As for the widow mine change: I hate them already, this will make me hate them more. | ||
|
TossHeroes
281 Posts
That unit is a cancer as much as Swarm host. | ||
|
[MyM]ArToFZerG
2 Posts
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. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
- 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. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
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. | ||
|
Telephone
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
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. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16618 Posts
On August 31 2023 08:04 PartingFan wrote: - 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. 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. | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
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 | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
| ||
|
franzji
United States581 Posts
| ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On August 30 2023 19:21 Charoisaur wrote: 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. | ||
| ||
