|
So I've searched and I've scoured, and maybe my TL searching and scouring skills aren't top notch, but it blows my mind I have yet to find a serious discussion on the behavior of people discussing Starcraft 2 balance issues.
Why is it that every Starcraft 2 thread I read has people blurting out stuff about "obvious" imbalances in a game which isn't anywhere near completion and they've logged a total of 2 hours on? (If any.)
Anyone here who is serious about Starcraft should be able to comprehend the complexity of the game, and understand that you cannot judge the power of something within a 2 hour session of random play. The game isn't even freaking done yet!
What we need to be doing is judging the mechanics, concepts, and ideas of Starcraft 2 instead of pointlessly discussing balance issues which aren't even close to mattering at this point in time. Blizzard will make it balanced, don't worry about it. When it is done, even if it is unbalanced, Blizzard will do everything in their power to make it balanced. Complaining about it won't make a difference.
So let's see some more "Hey that's a cool mechanic which creates interesting gameplay!" or "Hey that mechanic is lame BECAUSE blah blah blah"
Instead of:
"Ultralisks are imba 'cause they hit lots of things now and there is no way to balance it and blizz will just release it like that 4 realz!11"
I suppose you could just consider this thread 'me ranting' but I seriously believe it would do both TL, Blizzard, and Starcraft 2 some good if people started discussing more serious issues in regard to Starcraft 2's unit and gameplay mechanics, rather than complain about things the people at Blizzard thought about for weeks long before we even know the unit existed.
Just my 2 cents. This post has been brewing for a while, someone's reply in the "Changeling" thread finally set me off.
|
I completely agree with everything you wrote. Judging balance based on a unit's description is pretty stupid, especially when you dont have a finished game.
|
I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors.
|
This is very true. Obviously some balance issues are important and need to be addressed (Phoenixes were too powerful in the early builds, Seige Tanks were too powerful in the latest build), but little things aren't a huge deal at the moment.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Uhm I think the majority of the threads are about mechanics (MBS, automining etc), or just talking about the unit. There are very little "omg blablabal is imba", there's a lot of "omg blabla is a horrible idea" but that's totally different.
|
I don't see it that drastically. Of course there are always people who prefer talking and talking instead of really saying something but they're not a majority in my eyes. Just ignore those who talk about imbalances instead of having a good point. I never used the term 'imbalance' in these topics about SC2 but I realized that it doesn't really matter, I got the same responses as those who do it all the time. So I think it's a general problem, not specifically one about SC2.
|
On July 10 2008 11:31 caelym wrote:
I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors.
...SC (and SC2) is hardly a rock paper scissors game
|
For the little complaints about balance. It's complaints about obvious seemingly intentional imbalances. Like the siege tank damage and hydralisk gas cost. Assuming the things I heard about them are correctly reported.
|
Blizzard hasn't even STARTED balance testing yet. They're still in the "we need a new macro dynamic," and the "let's try all these ideas and see how they work!" phase. That's why it pisses me off so much when people talk about balance in SC2. They haven't STARTED balancing yet. That comes later, y'know, when they have a reliable build to balance. Why fucking try and balance a unit that might not be there in the end?
The problem is that Blizzard is almost TOO open to public opinion. Everyone knows that Blizzard listens to us, so people feel an amount of responsibility to try and "help" them balance it. The argument vs "The game is still in development" is "and we are helping them develop."
In the end, it just turns into shit that never matters and doesn't help.
Concept design and opinion, yes, that is constructive and requires community input,
but nobody cares if you think that ultra's should have less life, or tanks do too much damage.
In short, totally agree with OP, even if it is just a rant. =D
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
|
|
|
I too agree with the op. The screaming is just silly.
However there are alot of goodies going on in the midst of alot of bullshit, and I do think that after WWI we see more and more proper discussion about unit concepts, ideas and the likes.
I'm guessing we're going towards a better forum read about SC2 in general 
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On July 10 2008 19:55 thedeadhaji wrote:
roaches are imbalanced!
dude roaches are soooo imba hahaha. Until you get hit with Marauder/Marine. Then T is too imba ;_;. Btw as soon as Nyovne finishes his part, the SC2 WWI playtest impression FE will get released. Then we can spend 5 weeks discussing whether what we wrote was correct or not.
|
I'm sure sc2 won't be balanced in years
|
you just contradicted yourself. People complain about obvious imbalances because they are obvious and any and all minor imbalances are going to be tackled in the beta, so why even bother!?
|
That brings up some fond memories, heh... heh. But seriously, my whole bitching moaning post that was referenced in the referenced post was little to do with balance and a lot to do with mechanics and fun factor before balancing went into play. I guess some people didn't get that at all. I am grateful that some AOE/splash attacks on ground units (Jackals, Ultras, new attack of the Colossus) have been added or tweaked up and some that had no place have been taken away from end game non-support air units (BC, Mothership does it qualify??). I like to think my rant post gave a new perspective to at least a few people. And for the record, Reavers are never coming back (in multi-player)... mark my words. 
|
Finally someone with the same viewpoint as mine and has the courage (by courage I mean not lazy) to make a thread about it.
|
On July 11 2008 04:45 thoraxe wrote:
Finally someone with the same viewpoint as mine and has the courage (by courage I mean not lazy) to make a thread about it.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if I'd get flamed or praised for bringing this up. Some people argue it's not very apparent, but it seems like most all Starcraft 2 thread I read feature some moron yelling about imbalances, which then proceeds to destroy the thread in argument.
|
So, in order to give this thread actual content and something to discuss, instead of just posting "I agree" x10, here's my balance complaint:
Lurkers and spine crawlers are way too similar in function. Both can be used offensively(you'll need overlords for the crawlers though, but it ain't like zerg typically doesn't have any) and the only real difference is the need for detection against lurkers.
|
um..did i miss something? Did the lurker change?
last i checked lurker was AoE and wasn't a building
|
On July 13 2008 02:34 caution.slip wrote:
um..did i miss something? Did the lurker change?
last i checked lurker was AoE and wasn't a building
And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech.
DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these...
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 10 2008 11:31 caelym wrote:
I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors.
wut?
|
On July 13 2008 03:16 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 11:31 caelym wrote:
I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors. wut?
Yeah I don't get it either. =P
|
On July 13 2008 03:16 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 11:31 caelym wrote:
I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors. wut?
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 13 2008 02:54 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2008 02:34 caution.slip wrote:
um..did i miss something? Did the lurker change?
last i checked lurker was AoE and wasn't a building And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech. DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these...
Errr, no?
Lurker is smaller, slower, same durability, 25 mins 75 gas and 1 psi more expensive (not in the lurker morph but since the hydra is more expensive resource and psi wise), and its the same tech as it doesnt require an upgrade but just the Hydra Den--> Deep Burrow morph.
So you get a slower lurker for 25 min 75 gas 1 psi more which does 10 dmg + 30 (Which is alot so not sure.. I think?) vs armored. If they change the supply cost to what it used to be and increase lurker speed back they're still fine tbh.
All in all they got nerfed a bit but mostly indirectly through the hydra, and the speed and dmg are just changed, dunno if thats for the worse allthough the speedchange feels a bit stupid since they already need to be burrowed before they can do their thing they can at least get there in a timely fashion.
|
no way should they make lurker slower than the crawling defensive tower, that's retarded.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 13 2008 05:24 dcttr66 wrote:
no way should they make lurker slower than the crawling defensive tower, that's retarded.
Who says its slower, its slower then it was in SCBW, not slower then a crawler :p.
|
On July 13 2008 07:15 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2008 05:24 dcttr66 wrote:
no way should they make lurker slower than the crawling defensive tower, that's retarded. Who says its slower, its slower then it was in SCBW, not slower then a crawler :p.
On July 13 2008 02:54 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2008 02:34 caution.slip wrote:
um..did i miss something? Did the lurker change?
last i checked lurker was AoE and wasn't a building And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech. DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these...
All of klockan's comparisons are in relation to the crawler, not to the BW lurker (since I was also compariing the lurker to the crawler, klockan was adding on to mine)
so its faster, frailer, more expensive, and higher tech compared to the crawler
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
Ah my bad, crawlers aren't aoe though and have a 5 sec root time and and are just 100 hp and creatures not buildings when uprooted so they die reallllyyyyy fast. Oh and obv indd cloaked while burrowed.
|
On July 13 2008 12:57 Nyovne wrote:
Ah my bad, crawlers aren't aoe though and have a 5 sec root time and and are just 100 hp and creatures not buildings when uprooted so they die reallllyyyyy fast. Oh and obv indd cloaked while burrowed.
really? they only have 100 hp? thats...so little! What changes when they uproot? their armor isn't "building" armor anymore? (does building armor exist? i know they have "fortified' in WC3)
or does their HP go down?
what do you mean by "indd"?
|
How could some of you forget to mention they have different names, that's the same difference in functionality as individual unit cost/power/fragility or tech level(just imagine two identical units at different tech levels).
I was hoping people would actually talk about things that make real difference, like Nyovne mentioned the awfully long deploy time(which wasn't like that in the video where Blizz demoed them). Contains are even less viable in SC2 and with deployment too slow for combat, it makes them not really useful offensively, so at least there's that distinct difference in functionality.
Also, Lurkers aren't fully invisible units, a terran can stop lurkers from advancing without having detection, but not DTs and that's a big difference.
Actually, if lurkers moved underground and deployed so they are visible when firing, they would be more interesting(and useful), since they would be able to sneak or advance against an enemy without detection. He won't need detection to fight them, but they would be able to observe the enemy and deploy in very advantegious positions(like right next to a group of marines - no need for hold lurker).
|
If they would be visible, digging through the cliffs would be nice too x)
Zerg would have at least 1 unit to do this
|
I agree entirely with the OP.
Discussing balance in a game based on what we know about a DIFFERENT game (SC:BW) just doesn't make sense.
|
Lurkers are slower? That's dumb... the lurker in SC1 was the unit which slows down Zerg armies so much (it moves fast, but it's like a siege tank with constant burrow and unburrow). Plus the defiler. Soooo slooooooow.
But I just realized I'm doing exactly what the OP complains about.
|
Keep in mind that detection is going to be rarer than in BW.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:12 Bash wrote:
Keep in mind that detection is going to be rarer than in BW.
Barely, just for zerg tbh. Terrans and Protoss are the same, I mean radar towers, scanner, nomad, cannons and observers.
Zerg no shriekers or detecting spores, and just overseers and not overlords who detect.
|
On July 13 2008 17:18 lololol wrote:
How could some of you forget to mention they have different names, that's the same difference in functionality as individual unit cost/power/fragility or tech level(just imagine two identical units at different tech levels).
I was hoping people would actually talk about things that make real difference, like Nyovne mentioned the awfully long deploy time(which wasn't like that in the video where Blizz demoed them). Contains are even less viable in SC2 and with deployment too slow for combat, it makes them not really useful offensively, so at least there's that distinct difference in functionality.
Also, Lurkers aren't fully invisible units, a terran can stop lurkers from advancing without having detection, but not DTs and that's a big difference.
Actually, if lurkers moved underground and deployed so they are visible when firing, they would be more interesting(and useful), since they would be able to sneak or advance against an enemy without detection. He won't need detection to fight them, but they would be able to observe the enemy and deploy in very advantegious positions(like right next to a group of marines - no need for hold lurker).
I keep thinking about this alternate Lurker design... it could be something Blizzard should seriously consider since they want to change up unit interactions. So far this is what I think is pertinent, mostly concentrating on before the enemy gets mobile detection:
1. Can sneak around base easier, like a DT.
2. Not as good when you have low numbers of Lurks vs early Terran? For instance, lurker rush. OR are they? You can just burrow move to a better spot then start attacking and you can retreat much easier.
3. Tanks would be very good against them, sieged. Except if it was a lone tank, then you could burrow to melee range then attack.
4. Unsieged tanks better vs them... may or may not be a big deal vs SC2 tanks (higher damage on both ends of that fight?).
5. I expect they'd be worse vs Protoss general army... but in high numbers maybe not.
6. ZvZ... lurker function similar to BW? Good vs zerglings.
7. Better or worse vs Terran scans? I would almost say better b/c you can run, but if you are visible while attacking I guess it doesn't matter that much... they won't need to scan unless you are running and they think they can cut you off.
8. Ambushes/flanking would be very possible to set up.
Important factors that will affect how useful they'd be like this:
1. How fast would they move burrowed?
2. How fast could they go into "attack mode", shoot then turn off attack mode? Could they snipe a couple of marines or would they die with a big delay where they were visible?
3. If they go into attack mode too slowly, would ranged enemies just be able to run out of the way each time you tried to engage? Would a flank/ambush make up for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
