EPTWould you prefer the game to be balanced around top-tier p…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net128 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16053 Posts
If the well of available tournaments to enjoy as a spectator is no longer there, then the upside of enjoying Starcraft 2 at the professional level is diminished to the point that it's not worth the trade off of being unbalanced for the average player. So the way I see it we're in a transitionary period right now. If the pro scene isn't going to get a new jolt of life in the next 1 or 2 years then I'm going to switch my stance to wanting the game balanced around the people playing it instead of the pro scene. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary372 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6762 Posts
I don't watch any content outside the top 100 and I rarely play 1v1 anymore. And even if I were to play you can do so much bullcrap at my level (low Master) that balance really isn't the issue | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
I repeat that since at least 10 years, then you return to "very fast" speed. I know you can argue that s not the question, but for god sake, this question is a clue of what is killing the game, the lack of a pro team for maintaining the game healthy, so it s entirely about Activision unactivity. PS : then if it was only about me i will balance the game with normal settings, then increase to fast only, because players take serious damage at arm and hand problem with this ultra competitive game speed. | ||
|
esReveR
United States567 Posts
A 70/30 mix favoring balance at the pro level feels right to me. But, no matter what balance changes are made, people will always complain about them. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15875 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
Undead vs Orc top GM level: ~80% winrate for Orcs. Undead vs Orc low GM level: ~55% winrate for Orcs. below that level : Undead are (sometimes far) above Orcs. This was the case for several years before Sc2 arrived. Winrates have changed (greatly) since top GM pros left wc3 when sc2 arrived. Edit: Undead players TeD and Happy were the best players vs top GM Orcs with around 50% winrate in (offline) Tournaments. | ||
|
andrewphilip
2 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3338 Posts
Of course fun is subjective but for me sc2 bas gone downhill for a while. The numerous dynamic patches may adjust the win rate close to parity but i find the game got stale, boring even. | ||
|
MrIronGolem27
United States194 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16053 Posts
On March 12 2025 01:11 MrIronGolem27 wrote: The comment chain here shows that the wording of the poll is horribly flawed and nobody is reading the question thoroughly... Balancing around the average pro would essentially be balancing around the top of GM which would be the same level that balancing around the ladder would be. I dont think anyone thinks we should be balancing around Gold league, but balancing around GM level would be much more applicable to the average player than balancing around savants like Maru and Serral. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
On March 11 2025 15:28 Vindicare605 wrote: Normally my answer would be firmly in the top tier level camp, but that's as long as there actually is a thriving top tier level scene. If the well of available tournaments to enjoy as a spectator is no longer there, then the upside of enjoying Starcraft 2 at the professional level is diminished to the point that it's not worth the trade off of being unbalanced for the average player. So the way I see it we're in a transitionary period right now. If the pro scene isn't going to get a new jolt of life in the next 1 or 2 years then I'm going to switch my stance to wanting the game balanced around the people playing it instead of the pro scene. Yeah agreed. Balance is balancing many things beyond tip-top competitive parity. Including fun, and including factoring in the level of players you actually do have. If various subreddits are to be believed, perhaps it’s a vocal minority but a LOT of Zergs are really not having fun, taking breaks or switching faction because they (largely) hate PvZ specifically. Tweaks may fuck up the pro level of play, so not tweaking is somewhat understandable, but wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense if it didn’t meaningfully exist I think even now it’s thinning out to the degree that maybe the top-tier approach is flawed. With seemingly every patch and new meta we’ve gradually moved over a stretch from Serral + multiple Zerg WCs, GSL champs, and a handful of others winning premiers or placing deep, to like basically only Serral maintaining peak form. On March 12 2025 01:11 MrIronGolem27 wrote: The comment chain here shows that the wording of the poll is horribly flawed and nobody is reading the question thoroughly... Unless it was changed, the wording of the poll is about as clear as you could make it. If people’s attention span is thus that even reading a single sentence before commenting, not much one can do. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16053 Posts
On March 12 2025 02:30 WombaT wrote: Yeah agreed. Balance is balancing many things beyond tip-top competitive parity. Including fun, and including factoring in the level of players you actually do have. If various subreddits are to be believed, perhaps it’s a vocal minority but a LOT of Zergs are really not having fun, taking breaks or switching faction because they (largely) hate PvZ specifically. Tweaks may fuck up the pro level of play, so not tweaking is somewhat understandable, but wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense if it didn’t meaningfully exist I think even now it’s thinning out to the degree that maybe the top-tier approach is flawed. With seemingly every patch and new meta we’ve gradually moved over a stretch from Serral + multiple Zerg WCs, GSL champs, and a handful of others winning premiers or placing deep, to like basically only Serral maintaining peak form. Unless it was changed, the wording of the poll is about as clear as you could make it. If people’s attention span is thus that even reading a single sentence before commenting, not much one can do. I said that was going to happen didn't I Wombat? They buffed Skytoss which is something that we've known since WoL that Zergs hate to play against, and they buffed late game Skytoss without giving Zerg anything compensentory to deal with it in the late game. Of COURSE Zergs are gonna be upset about that, especially on the ladder where Skytoss is much more dominant. It's the cycle that we've seen repeated over and over again. Protoss sucks at top level, they buff Protoss, Protoss is unfun to play against on ladder and dominates ladder like it always does, people complain till Protoss gets nerfed. We've seen the cycle over and over again. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:25 Vindicare605 wrote: I said that was going to happen didn't I Wombat? They buffed Skytoss which is something that we've known since WoL that Zergs hate to play against, and they buffed late game Skytoss without giving Zerg anything compensentory to deal with it in the late game. Of COURSE Zergs are gonna be upset about that, especially on the ladder where Skytoss is much more dominant. It's the cycle that we've seen repeated over and over again. Protoss sucks at top level, they buff Protoss, Protoss is unfun to play against on ladder and dominates ladder like it always does, people complain till Protoss gets nerfed. We've seen the cycle over and over again. The cycle repeats… In this particular instance I think as much an unintended side effect that sucks, rather than a straight buff that’s doing it. I actually liked the idea of energy overcharge instead of battery. I also, incorrectly thought lower level P would really struggle versus T without the latter. Where it seems like, broadly OK. PvZ Oracles can get pumped with energy and be more active offensively, but also really reliably hold greedy bases, where before they didn’t have the juice. So you can accelerate to SkyToss really reliably. The cherry on top is you can’t abduct Mommaships, which really tips the scales. Any RTS will have metas settling, dominant strategies. You end up with real problems when they’re just not fun. I don’t think there’s been a single heavy-air meta that’s been particularly fun. Not to play with, against or even to watch. And by heavy air I mean like, featuring heavy air units, not ‘a lot of air units’. Plenty of muta-heavy styles, super fun. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16053 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:53 WombaT wrote: The cycle repeats… In this particular instance I think as much an unintended side effect that sucks, rather than a straight buff that’s doing it. I actually liked the idea of energy overcharge instead of battery. I also, incorrectly thought lower level P would really struggle versus T without the latter. Where it seems like, broadly OK. PvZ Oracles can get pumped with energy and be more active offensively, but also really reliably hold greedy bases, where before they didn’t have the juice. So you can accelerate to SkyToss really reliably. The cherry on top is you can’t abduct Mommaships, which really tips the scales. Any RTS will have metas settling, dominant strategies. You end up with real problems when they’re just not fun. I don’t think there’s been a single heavy-air meta that’s been particularly fun. Not to play with, against or even to watch. And by heavy air I mean like, featuring heavy air units, not ‘a lot of air units’. Plenty of muta-heavy styles, super fun. The problem is that buffing Skytoss is the only feasible way to increase Protoss late game viability especially against Zerg. We can't buff their ground armies because their ground armies are tied to Warp Gate. So whenever Protoss is unable to win at the top level, the only two options are to buff their timing attack capabilities or buff Skytoss. Neither of which are fun options for people on the ladder where these options are both a: already very strong and b: no one likes to play against. It's a design problem for Protoss. Always has been, always will be. | ||
|
ProTech1
37 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
If some changes are planned tomorrow on PTR just for fun, i would like to follow some tests matchs just to check how innovation can be implemented, It s really simple, you can easily add some variations, about for example economy speed, about objectives for gaining map control or simply win conditions. I m just pissed off when i see DOTA2 being completely updated and changed while the game has nothing really new to offer. It s like if Activision just buried the licence. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States991 Posts
Balance the game to the average tier level, and balance the top tier matchups with maps. Balancing the game to the top tier level is a massive mistake which confuses skill, imbalance, and reputation. | ||
|
ProTech1
37 Posts
On March 12 2025 06:04 Monochromatic wrote: This is something I've been thinking of a lot recently. Balance the game to the average tier level, and balance the top tier matchups with maps. Balancing the game to the top tier level is a massive mistake which confuses skill, imbalance, and reputation. Don't think I could have said it better myself. Relatively certain that every other game does this on the market, including WoL and HoTS. LoTV missed the mark big time, which has resulted in his failure, while everything else continues to grow. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
On March 12 2025 06:19 ProTech1 wrote: Don't think I could have said it better myself. Relatively certain that every other game does this on the market, including WoL and HoTS. LoTV missed the mark big time, which has resulted in his failure, while everything else continues to grow. Did we play the same WoL and HoTS? | ||
|
Pentarp
210 Posts
Playership and viewership has a non-negligible relationship. I'm sure that when new viewers got into the scene and felt like trying their own hand at the game, they got hit with arcane mechanics such as rapid-fire and inject-macros that is not an innate part of the base game. I know many don't play and just watch. Many will also point to physical sports and say more people watch than play. But they played a lot when young and able. Some older fans of physical sports still get together play some casual games. I want to have that itch to play once in a while before my body starts aching and I need to stop - not because I found the games frustrating and suffocating. Simple, but difficult & expensive answer: why not both? Game should feel reasonably fun across all levels of skill. By that, I don't mean a conscious acknowledgement of fun, since many will find it "fun" to keep winning. I mean a type of fun that keeps you coming back for more despite all your superficial complaints. When PiG played Terran ladder recently on stream, he gave up after a few games. I. Felt. It. In. My. Bones. Now that budget for this game has been cut down by Blizzard, that ship has likely sailed. But maybe it doesn't have to be that way for the average pro level. That's still a very small number of players to balance for. And maybe, (and I hate myself for even using this approach), it will trickle down to casuals playing the game more. | ||
|
adelfinalongo
1 Post
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On March 12 2025 05:16 Vindicare605 wrote: The problem is that buffing Skytoss is the only feasible way to increase Protoss late game viability especially against Zerg. We can't buff their ground armies because their ground armies are tied to Warp Gate. So whenever Protoss is unable to win at the top level, the only two options are to buff their timing attack capabilities or buff Skytoss. Neither of which are fun options for people on the ladder where these options are both a: already very strong and b: no one likes to play against. It's a design problem for Protoss. Always has been, always will be. I agree completely. Warpgate is the original sin of SC2 Protoss design, with which all Protoss ground armies have been forever cursed. The existence of the warp prism makes this problem 10x worse. When I snipe a terran or zerg drop, it feel great. When I snipe a prism, it feels like I've accomplished very little. I might give the SC2 editor another go. Remove warpgate, buff zealots, stalkers, and sentries appropriately. Delete the disruptor, the swarmhost, and maybe the cyclone or the liberator ground attack. Disruptors and swarmhosts are not fun to play with or against. Disruptor is ridiculously punishing to players with poor micro. swarmhosts are basically just used to torture metal league players (seriously, there is a silver/gold league meta where players go 2base or 1base nydus swarmhost every game) and by Rogue whenever he finds a good map to abuse them on. I remember a game Rogue played on Golden Wall vs some terran in GSL where he played nydus swarmhost, it was disgusting to watch. Remember when the liberator was designed as an anti muta unit? lol Revert to 6 worker start. When sOs, the only player in HotS to win 3 WC level events (a record unbroken until Serral's 2024), can't express his strategic skills in LotV any more, the game have lost something very important. There is no clearly defined early game, mid game, and late game any more. Then I just have to convince people to play it.... | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary372 Posts
On March 12 2025 13:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote: I agree completely. Warpgate is the original sin of SC2 Protoss design, with which all Protoss ground armies have been forever cursed. why can't we just make it so units warped in far from a completed nexus start with 0 shield, and won't start regen for a few secs. we would still have defensive warp ins, but offensive ones would be much less powerful. or fuck defensive warp ins as well, make all warp ins 0 shield. we could even slow down the prism, and make the speed research cost 50/50/57s, restoring the current speed only. i'm sure the shieldless warp ins were mentioned before, what could possibly go wrong with that. protoss not winning a major? we are used to that. | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
176 Posts
For example, small unit cost changes. At average levels where people float resources, these mostly just affect cheese unless the map mines out and everything gets spent. At high levels, it can have an impact on the optimization of entire build orders. | ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4144 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19176 Posts
| ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1597 Posts
Second: Balance at the top Every time Acti-Blizz popped off a patch for whatever meme strategy of the week was going down because the thousands of tin players were crying on reddit, pros were already solving it. They removed the threat zone of many builds and concepts which forced the game into an extremely macro focused big game with less variety. | ||
|
xelnaga_empire
621 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:25 Vindicare605 wrote: It's the cycle that we've seen repeated over and over again. Protoss sucks at top level, they buff Protoss, Protoss is unfun to play against on ladder and dominates ladder like it always does, people complain till Protoss gets nerfed. I don't pay much attention to SC2 these days as I primarily play AoE4 and watch AoE4 tournaments, but I noticed the influx of some top Euro SC2 pros (and even Nina today) come play AoE4. This is SortOf's comments on why he is playing AoE4 these days: This is what has always happened in the last 15 years of SC2. Once Protoss gets buffed, ladder is dominated by Protoss even more and the entire SC2 community (minus the Protoss players) get angry. I remember when things were more balanced, Protoss was already dominating ladder, but not to the extent that I have heard recently. Right now, SC2 needs everything going for it, with ESLTV not doing anything at the moment, the issues with the GSL, no Katowice this year, etc. Some SC2 pros looking at AoE4, looking at other games, or retiring, is not a good thing. To be honest, since I don't watch SC2 as much these days, I benefit when some of the SC2 pros coming over to try AoE4 again. Not that AoE4's e-sport scene is really strong - it is actually quite weak, and the prize earnings are very low. But it says a lot when AoE4's e-sport scene is quite weak, but it is still attracting some SC2 pros to come over. In any case, I am enjoying watching SortOf, Elazer, Nina (and even UThermal in chat says he is trying AoE4) in AoE4. And ladder being overrun by Protoss, when Protoss was already dominating ladder on the EU server, is just making things worse. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
It just sucks hard right now, especially at lower levels. And that’s coming from a Toss, I’m not whining because I’m personally losing MMR | ||
|
Gudrun R. Hall
1 Post
| ||
|
THERIDDLER
Canada116 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
Top tier should possibly have more priority without the average getting out of control. But the question is: are we currently balancing for top tier? or for the agenda like Toss champion? | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1597 Posts
| ||
|
FaZ-
United States187 Posts
But you're simply kicking the can down the road: those insights from current elite players are what an average player will be expected to know in the future. Pros are already handling the new interaction correctly and accounting for it in their play- weaker players aren't yet. Thus, games must be balanced around elite play or the changes made won't reflect balance realities. Balancing around average players means deliberately choosing to have a meta that's constantly in flux and constantly in need of updates. Perfect balance is a measurable goal. You can judge how balanced an asymmetric game is by examining various usage and win rates and evaluate whether a game is moving closer to or farther away from perfect balance as it's patched. No game will ever hit that goal, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't aim for it. The inevitable errors made in attempting to achieve perfect balance (and other changes made for the sake of design rather than balance) should determine the metagame- not what units or characters happened to get patched this season. Too many games continue to get this wrong. | ||
|
iloveyou0224
1 Post
User was warned for this post | ||
|
SharkStarcraft
Austria2182 Posts
| ||
|
Pentarp
210 Posts
On March 19 2025 04:36 SharkStarcraft wrote: How should a competitive scene even exist if balance wasn't revolving around the top? Remove Zealot Shields cause noobs can't micro against chargelots? Every game with a pro scene focuses on the top if im not mistaken, and imo for good reason - let's say Terran is the "baseline most difficult race to play well" for this argument's sake and therefore receives buffs not fit for pro play - over time, we would be back to the glory days of GomTvT in a more extreme manner than back then. Competitive scene is suffering despite balancing only around the top. Game is just not fun to play at lower skill levels. I'm not great in Overwatch either but damn is that game fun (until I get burned-out but that's every game). You can aim buffs and nerfs to target units with high skill ceiling vs low skill ceiling so that pro scene vs casual scene are both considered in the process. No one is asking for a drastic change that leads to one race dominating. So save your fearmongering. If you don't see the problem with Clem choosing Protoss vs T because he cannot get enough practice vs T on ladder, that's a sad situation even for the pros. Noobs also matter because when young noobs pick up the game, and gradually get better at it, they might become pros. If you make the game oppressive at lower skill levels, they won't become the next pro players. | ||
|
SharkStarcraft
Austria2182 Posts
On March 19 2025 04:56 Pentarp wrote: Competitive scene is suffering despite balancing only around the top. Game is just not fun to play at lower skill levels. I'm not great in Overwatch either but damn is that game fun (until I get burned-out but that's every game). You can aim buffs and nerfs to target units with high skill ceiling vs low skill ceiling so that pro scene vs casual scene are both considered in the process. No one is asking for a drastic change that leads to one race dominating. So save your fearmongering. If you don't see the problem with Clem choosing Protoss vs T because he cannot get enough practice vs T on ladder, that's a sad situation even for the pros. Noobs also matter because when young noobs pick up the game, and gradually get better at it, they might become pros. If you make the game oppressive at lower skill levels, they won't become the next pro players. I don't agree. How could you buff a unit for lower skill levels that wouldn't break them at pro level? Even automatic injects or something like that would give pros a huge edge too. Could you give an example of a sensible change? The high barrier of entry is one of the main reasons SC2 experienced its downfall, I'm not arguing against that - but that's the nature of the game, you can't compare it to Overwatch, it's just a highly complex game by nature. A few tweaks here and there won't change the fact that a competitive SC2 looks like rocket science to the uninformed. In my opinion, making the campaign free to play was a good start, as I feel like it best eases people new to RTS into the game. That and constant patches, let's not call it catering towards lower level play, but quality of life changes for everyone, would have done wonders, especially during a time such as BL inf. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
On March 19 2025 05:20 SharkStarcraft wrote: I don't agree. How could you buff a unit for lower skill levels that wouldn't break them at pro level? Even automatic injects or something like that would give pros a huge edge too. Could you give an example of a sensible change? The high barrier of entry is one of the main reasons SC2 experienced its downfall, I'm not arguing against that - but that's the nature of the game, you can't compare it to Overwatch, it's just a highly complex game by nature. A few tweaks here and there won't change the fact that a competitive SC2 looks like rocket science to the uninformed. In my opinion, making the campaign free to play was a good start, as I feel like it best eases people new to RTS into the game. That and constant patches, let's not call it catering towards lower level play, but quality of life changes for everyone, would have done wonders, especially during a time such as BL inf. Lambo in a recent video made the point that changing Carrier’s interceptor targeting priority was a big, big help to lower level players, but didn’t affect pro players at all. High level players don’t have an issue target firing Carriers, but lower level players in an A-move versus A-move, or merely bad targeting would get shredded while interceptors tanked a ton of damage. Not so much a buff, but you can make changes that help the scrubs but don’t really impact pro play. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary372 Posts
On March 19 2025 05:20 SharkStarcraft wrote:I don't agree. How could you buff a unit for lower skill levels that wouldn't break them at pro level? Even automatic injects or something like that would give pros a huge edge too. Could you give an example of a sensible change? I don't think the injects are problematic especially since it's stackable. a bad colossus gang swipe, a huge storm, mine hit, a nova hit can be devastating. but here's one off the top of my head. a noob friendlier queen: when inject is on auto cast, the queen, after a certain idle period (15+s?) would move closer to the nearest hatch if she would be far away (wandering queen, lost / not hotkeyed creep queens). when a hatchery would be idle (not injected) for more than a certain period (20+s?), one of the nearby auto injecting queens (max energy) would inject it. they would not stack injects, would not inject asap. inject efficiency could be 50-60% this way. and an extra disruptor nova does not explode automatically. has the same lifetime as now, explosion can and must be triggered manually, using a hotkey (maybe between t+1..end of nova life, can't blow up asap to allow some counterplay if surrounded). if not triggered, nova would not do damage. there could be others as well. why not give some meaning to the metal borders / leagues affecting ladder play only. for example let the game speed be fast for < plat leagues, maybe even normal for < gold. disallow constructing or landing of buildings on the opponent's half of the map in the first 5 minutes for < dia. (I'm looking at my boys playing the game, the older one already played some ladder, but there's no way the younger 2 would have any good experience trying it. they play against each other and/or friends like we did it 25+ years ago heh). | ||
|
Pentarp
210 Posts
On March 19 2025 05:20 SharkStarcraft wrote: I don't agree. How could you buff a unit for lower skill levels that wouldn't break them at pro level? Even automatic injects or something like that would give pros a huge edge too. Could you give an example of a sensible change? The high barrier of entry is one of the main reasons SC2 experienced its downfall, I'm not arguing against that - but that's the nature of the game, you can't compare it to Overwatch, it's just a highly complex game by nature. A few tweaks here and there won't change the fact that a competitive SC2 looks like rocket science to the uninformed. In my opinion, making the campaign free to play was a good start, as I feel like it best eases people new to RTS into the game. That and constant patches, let's not call it catering towards lower level play, but quality of life changes for everyone, would have done wonders, especially during a time such as BL inf. I'm proposing a fundamental change at looking at balance to reward skill and punish mistakes in a manner that recognizes the state of balance across all skill levels. Buffing Protoss because they're not winning tournaments, while ignoring the very healthy representation of Protoss at lower-tier pro level and GM, is exactly the attitude that lead to BL/Infestor and SHvsSH eras. (GomTvT era was because the game was just so new, imo). If we only balance for the very top players (since Serral and Clem are winning almost everything), the next few years of SC2 scene will be flooded by PvPs. And I agree with you that GomTvT and BL/infestor was bad for the scene - which is why a flood of PvP will also be bad for the scene that's already struggling. I also agree that automatic injects would give a huge egde to pros. But it would do less for Serral compared to a lower tier pro. So you can see how chargelots being strong isn't just an issue for the noobs; chargelots demand more APM and attention from opponents than the user. Yeah it's okay for Clem who has plenty of APM and attention to spare, but sucks for everyone else. Since you asked for a suggestion, I would propose that Protoss units cost a bit less for a bit less HP/supply. Let's tweak that design philosophy a bit. Protoss needs changes, through a combination of buffs and nerfs, that reward skill and nerfs deathball. There's very little difference in gameplay between a top tier pro or lower-tier pro/highGM Protoss once they've got their deathball. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5214 Posts
There are many bad mechanics in Starcraft II (Window Mine, Abduct, etc...) that are difficult for lower level players to handle and are not fun, so they feel imbalanced. Certainly, at some point skill can overcome these bad mechanics, but had Starcraft II followed modern game design tenets and not created power without gameplay (at least they removed Pylon Overcharge which was the worst example) and other mechanics where anti-fun exceeds anti-fun, it would be still the largest E-Sport. The real solution that allows the game to be balanced at all levels is to fix or remove the bad mechanics. But like many others, I just play League like so many others. https://lawofgamedesign.com/2014/02/20/zileas-list-of-game-design-anti-fun-patterns/ | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16053 Posts
On March 25 2025 21:30 WombaT wrote: Doesn’t League have similarly frustrating things though? I mean I really don’t know much about the game at all so I may be wrong! What's different about League or MoBA's in general is that the variety of heroes makes it easier to avoid mechanics players don't find fun. Don't like how a hero plays? Don't play it. Don't like playing against a certain hero? Ban it, or play a different lane. In SC2, there's only 3 races, there's only 9 match ups. If there are unfun mechanics in any of the match ups, it's much harder to avoid having to just deal with them. When one race has more of these unfun mechanics than others, it's a much bigger problem than it is in league if a couple of heroes have unfun mechanics because you can't just avoid fighting one of the 3 races like you can avoid playing against heroes you don't like in league. Now you can do things like If you hate Skytoss for example, you can just all in them and force the game to be over before Skytoss becomes a factor, but that in turn creates its own problem of feeling like you HAVE to play a certain way just to avoid having to fight something you hate dealing with. There's also the teammate aspect in MoBAs where if you are dealing with something you hate dealing with you can always call allies for help. SC2 doesnt have a teammate option, if you're dealing with something you hate dealing with you either gotta tough it out or just leave. Now MoBAs have their own set of issues like toxic teammates, griefing, and all kinds of other shit. But in terms of gameplay, it's easier to see how having a few bad mechanics is much easier to work around in those games than in a full RTS like SC2. | ||
|
johnnyh123
87 Posts
Like, if you want to play pro, you want to be top hundred-ish, basically regardless of entertainment genre/niche (think other competitive games like Chess, other eSports, major sports, singers, actors, etc.) For the rest of us, it just has to be fun and easy to start, like I could sing songs at a karaoke bar, but I ain't singing like a Bruno Mars. And yeah, the music industry is doing alright (overall, but debatable for whom) | ||
|
Ch3rry
Poland215 Posts
Ranked is more or less fine at this moment, if you are lower than Diamond you can improve regardless of balance. But we need some innovation to keep the massess playing the game, not just watching. And of course buff Zerg, not all of us are Serral  | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On March 27 2025 18:42 Ch3rry wrote: At this point there should be separate ladder/matchaking with mutators. Like, neutral creeps attack both bases, fliers 2x damage, immortal workers, etc. Something like Hearthstone Tavern Brawl mode. Ranked is more or less fine at this moment, if you are lower than Diamond you can improve regardless of balance. But we need some innovation to keep the massess playing the game, not just watching. And of course buff Zerg, not all of us are Serral I agree, the ladder block a ton of possibility, they could reduce the number of league and allow community to play to best mods on some ladders. I mean, sc2 evo complete should be playable in a dedicated ladder, while starbow even if it has never been fixed, would have been playable as well if they have finished to fix all issues | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24162 Posts
On March 27 2025 18:42 Ch3rry wrote: At this point there should be separate ladder/matchaking with mutators. Like, neutral creeps attack both bases, fliers 2x damage, immortal workers, etc. Something like Hearthstone Tavern Brawl mode. Ranked is more or less fine at this moment, if you are lower than Diamond you can improve regardless of balance. But we need some innovation to keep the massess playing the game, not just watching. And of course buff Zerg, not all of us are Serral I wouldn’t go that extreme myself, I’m something of a believer in having some core standard mode. Perhaps I’m too conservative in this sense, I just find too much deviation can maybe dilute the player base further rather than actually boost it. But I do think they’ve missed a load of tricks with unranked mode. It’s just ladder for those with ladder anxiety and isn’t much more casually-focused at all. Maybe I just wanna play PvT all day. Or maybe I wanna try a new faction, and start from a fresh MMR rather than that of my main and have to get stomped to find my new starting point. Or on the flip side, if I switch back after my experiment, stomp most of my opponents on my way back up. I feel there’s a lot more unranked mode could have done to scratch that itch of ‘proper’ StarCraft, but be more casual-friendly and different from ranked ladder. | ||
|
Pentarp
210 Posts
On March 25 2025 21:24 BronzeKnee wrote: This is completely the wrong way to look at balance because it is tied to game design. There are many bad mechanics in Starcraft II (Window Mine, Abduct, etc...) that are difficult for lower level players to handle and are not fun, so they feel imbalanced. Certainly, at some point skill can overcome these bad mechanics, but had Starcraft II followed modern game design tenets and not created power without gameplay (at least they removed Pylon Overcharge which was the worst example) and other mechanics where anti-fun exceeds anti-fun, it would be still the largest E-Sport. The real solution that allows the game to be balanced at all levels is to fix or remove the bad mechanics. But like many others, I just play League like so many others. https://lawofgamedesign.com/2014/02/20/zileas-list-of-game-design-anti-fun-patterns/ Why is it wrong to look at balance when tied to game design? When +light damage was removed from liberators, it was a significant design change because it removed it's function as an anti-light air-to-air unit. At some point, balance and design are inter-twined. One affects the other. And as it stands, some aspects of the game is not just unfun to play, it's unfun to watch. | ||
|
goody153
44033 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3333 Posts
Late hots\early lotv was the bomb. | ||
| ||
