Community Feedback Update - October 8
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
| ||
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
The prevalence of Mass Air Armies that can't be killed from the ground are bad for the game. Why? 1. There is no way to get more out of your slow moving air units. There is no back and forth, counterplay, or micro. Slow moving capital ships are bad in low numbers, so you can't risk sending them out early. They force an air deathball. 2. Ground armies are about positioning and unit control. Big air armies are the opposite of that. 3. Air harassment makes sense for dynamic play. Mass air armies do not make sense for an enjoyable, dynamic game. If ground armies were strong and just needed air armies as supplemental forces, then the game is still more positional based and fun with unit interactions and less a-move. Liberators and tempests are trying to be that supplemental role, but mass carriers and vipers overshadow how this works. Protoss has a weaker late ground game in LOTV and carriers in the current form are there to keep their winrates up. Protoss tend to turtle to mass air lategame b/c Lurkers, Ultras, and Liberators are too scary. Plus muta and medivac threat encourage more stargate play which sets Protoss up for a mass air game later. Circular problem. Zerg is having a similar problem against mass air armies, and Vipers + more air units are the most obvious way to deal with them. This is a circular problem. Terrans will have starports in any build any matchup, and in LOTV tend to go liberators because they are great against ground and most air. Eventually this forces air armies from the enemy, which forces more air armies from Terran. Circular problem. Everything is slowly pushing the meta to mass air armies. It's this weird circular dynamic that we are trapped in. Break the circle, make ground to air attacks better across the board (or weaken mass air armies by weakening range or something), make gateway stronger for non-deathball ground battles in PvX so mass carriers or deathballs aren't the answer, and we are on the path to fixing it. This might mean even weaker remote warpins and weaker MSC. Weakening air might mean reducing range | ||
BLAiNER
7 Posts
1. Cyclone 2. Swarmhost 3. Immortal. These units could essentially play a roll of Stationary Ground to Air, to help compositions fight heavy air these units hold up pretty well under pressure(as it is *unit stats*). 5-7 range with an auto shot to anything inside that radius. I want to promote this idea so much cause it seems legit and like most other RTS war games they have stationary AA units. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 10 2015 00:57 Blacklizard wrote: I worry about that quite a bit. "It's the root of all turtle games. It might end up balanced in some numbers, but you give players a clear incentive to play horseshit playstyles because they know their opponent has to come to them eventually." Turtle into unstoppable is bad when it is encouraged on both sides of the game and ongoing counterplay doesn't work. I think the encouragement on both sides usually just means that there just aren't a lot of good attacking options. Like for Mech vs Zerg, the ways to play aggressive often hinge largely on a compositional mistake from the zerg or a semi-successful hellbat timing. But out of your own power there is little you can force on your opponent, bar hellion runbies in HotS. (could be much better in LotV with liberators and speed banshees I think) And I think the encouragement to go for later technologies doesn't inherently imply turtling. TvT is a matchup that heavily rewards higher tech units like tanks and air units, but you are still encouraged to attack and play timings a lot. Similarily the Protoss matchups have traditionally had Protoss players teching a lot, but they also have rewarded Protoss to play a lot of timing builds. (not just the supercheesy ones; also rather scoutable 2base colossus, 3base pushes of all forms and just steady harassment play) I think a lot of the badness/staleness of turtling is always just a product of "free" or "cheap" trading. Swarm Hosts, spellcasters like Infestors or Ravens, partly high templar or the current carrier, viper, partly just rather mobile highrange units like Tempests/Vikings all can/could kill without too much danger to the unit and make it too easy to be rewarded for always falling back into defenses after doing damage. If we removed that (and some of it has already been removed) then turtling vs turtling becomes a lot more fun, because there is no ultimate way to just chip away at the opponent. If you want to win you have to go out and fight. That's just it, no more option to launch free units and play for the mine out. @the thing about the ultralisk. I agree that the liberator could work, at least on some maps. Also ghosts have become quite good from what I have seen with the recent patch. But at that moment in time I would give the advantage to zerg, even if it may balance out if the new tools given to terran really work out. But the popular parade pushing feels very allin in LotV to me at least, as the Terran eventually ends up on a mediocre tech setup to combat ultralisks. | ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
could be much better in LotV with liberators and speed banshees I think Well yeah, because it is air and doesn't get detected by creep spread (i still hate the vision concept with it) and is harder to deal with in general. I actually dislike the importance of air units in LOTV quite a bit. Happy birthday! | ||
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On October 10 2015 02:03 Big J wrote: @the thing about the ultralisk. I agree that the liberator could work, at least on some maps. Also ghosts have become quite good from what I have seen with the recent patch. But at that moment in time I would give the advantage to zerg, even if it may balance out if the new tools given to terran really work out. But the popular parade pushing feels very allin in LotV to me at least, as the Terran eventually ends up on a mediocre tech setup to combat ultralisks. I mean, this goes without saying, but the Liberator only works--against Ultras specifically--if the opponent willingly walks into the targeting area, and then stays there for long enough for each Ultra to take 4-6 shots from the Liberator (assuming some minor damage from other units). Then, the moment the Ultra ball is free of the targeting areas, it is quite impossible to re-target them. It is very, very, very difficult to defeat a Zerg who makes it to Ultras. I think the reason you are seeing some Terran saying "Ghosts!" against Ultras--myself included--is because it actually does some damage instead of zero damage. Even a huge 3/3 MMM ball stutter-stepping back across the entire map will get slaughtered by Ultras, killing very few, or zero of the Ultras. And you're big-time fucked if they bring their mass Queens along (they always do). It feels so incredibly broken. So yes, Ghosts are the best answer right now, but you can't just build a few Ghosts. You need mass Ghost with enough energy for multiple Snipes from each one. Then, of course, every single Snipe is manual cast on a specific Ultra (and let's face it, the Ultra ball, for the most part is 1a, when compared to a Ghost counterplay). You can't react with Ghosts either, you have to confirm, for certain, that Ultras are coming, and start preparing your Ghost ball well in advance. And if they don't build Ultras, and you're stuck with mass Ghost, well ... RE: Parade Pushing - doesn't work, at least in my experience. Creep spread is way too impossible to deal with, especially with the current MULE nerf. But keep in mind, I play Archon. Creep is fucking OP in Archon mode, my god ... But that's just me QQ'ing. In all seriousness, you just have to focus on killing the fourth or fifth hatch, over and over again, and then not dying to the Ultra switch in order to starve out the Zerg. So impossible to kill a Zerg it feels. | ||
LSN
Germany696 Posts
On October 09 2015 22:49 91matt wrote: There isn't a single high level zerg that doesn't think mech is too strong (in hots). Call it subjectivity but everyone hates playing against it. You don't need statistics on this one, you just need to play or watch the game. Mech is completely absurd. It's things like Terran mech in HoTS which drive good players away from playing the game. BL/Infestor wasn't unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, but it was absurd and bad for the game. Same with Terran mech. One race having the ability to play ultra defensive and build a godlike army is absolutely cancerous. What ppl consider a problem with mech is a problem based on mules actually. If mules were removed or weakened then mech couldn't use over supply and at the same time harrassment on T eco would matter more than it does now. The natural weakness of mech is to have the terran split its army up. I think it is not enough time now before release to do big changes. Mid and long term Blizzard needs to find a way to remove mules and potentially replace them with anything else and adapt other race's MM. Mules are the most detrimental unit to the game. | ||
johnbongham
451 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 10 2015 08:31 johnbongham wrote: Kinda funny that the one pro who's only claim to fame is like 3 hour long swarmhost stalemates is complaining about 45 mech tvz games. He is complaining about balance. About the game being unfair. Right or wrong, that's a complaint of completely different nature than you picture about not having enough patience skill. | ||
johnbongham
451 Posts
On October 10 2015 08:37 Big J wrote: He is complaining about balance. About the game being unfair. Right or wrong, that's a complaint of completely different nature than you picture about not having enough patience skill. I don't remember seeing him complain when he was able to abuse swarmhosts in pretty much all 3 matchups to the detriment of pretty much any tournament he was playing in. Ill take a 45min mech game over a 2-3 hour free-unit fest every single time. I also dont believe the winrates suggest any serious imbalance. Late game tvp has been pretty screwed up since WOL but terrans were told they just had to deal with it and win in the midgame. Not only that but I see zergs beating maxed mech armies often so just because it takes longer than a bio game doesn't make it imbalanced. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 10 2015 09:23 johnbongham wrote: I don't remember seeing him complain when he was able to abuse swarmhosts in pretty much all 3 matchups to the detriment of pretty much any tournament he was playing in. Ill take a 45min mech game over a 2-3 hour free-unit fest every single time. I also dont believe the winrates suggest any serious imbalance. Late game tvp has been pretty screwed up since WOL but terrans were told they just had to deal with it and win in the midgame. Not only that but I see zergs beating maxed mech armies often so just because it takes longer than a bio game doesn't make it imbalanced. You're getting silly. Of course he was not complaining when he thought that previously it was balanced and then it wasn't. You'r just fucking with words to make you sound clever, but what you do is a prime example of bad discussion style. | ||
johnbongham
451 Posts
On October 10 2015 09:29 Big J wrote: You're getting silly. Of course he was not complaining when he thought that previously it was balanced and then it wasn't. You'r just fucking with words to make you sound clever, but what you do is a prime example of bad discussion style. And you are just avoiding making an actual argument in the same way he is. There is pretty much no data to backup the argument that mech in tvz is op. Sure, games take longer than we have been used to but its not given that terran will win the majority of the time. Usually, the better player wins. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 10 2015 09:41 johnbongham wrote: And you are just avoiding making an actual argument in the same way he is. There is pretty much no data to backup the argument that mech in tvz is op. Sure, games take longer than we have been used to but its not given that terran will win the majority of the time. Usually, the better player wins. Stop with that silly bullshit about games taking longer. You're the only one who brings that argument to the table. You're the only one here that whined about the notion that a game can take too long and trying to make it sound like anyone else does is a plain strawman. Firecake literally said that he thinks the game is imbalanced and you keep on distracting with gamelength perceptions. That he doesn't have data to support it is a different discussion, call him out all you want for it, though he already gave his opinion on that matter. But that was not your original statemsnt, it was some silly bullshit about gamelength comparisons. And since you want my opinion, I think if you are not doing what's the best strategy even if it takes a "2-3 hour free-unit fest every single time" you are a shit strategy player and should lose every single game to a 1APM player whose only skill it is to have the will to do whatever it takes. | ||
jinjin5000
Korea (South)1232 Posts
On October 10 2015 06:24 LSN wrote: What ppl consider a problem with mech is a problem based on mules actually. If mules were removed or weakened then mech couldn't use over supply and at the same time harrassment on T eco would matter more than it does now. The natural weakness of mech is to have the terran split its army up. I think it is not enough time now before release to do big changes. Mid and long term Blizzard needs to find a way to remove mules and potentially replace them with anything else and adapt other race's MM. Mules are the most detrimental unit to the game. People throw away scv in lotv? I haven't done it yet since I find them too valuable to keep with reduced income and all.. | ||
CheddarToss
534 Posts
On October 10 2015 18:15 jinjin5000 wrote: People throw away scv in lotv? I haven't done it yet since I find them too valuable to keep with reduced income and all.. Currently there is too much imbalanced stuff in the game, which is why games tend to end rather early. As soon as the game is sufficiently balanced and games go to the late game more often, you will see it. | ||
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On October 10 2015 21:42 CheddarToss wrote: Currently there is too much imbalanced stuff in the game, which is why games tend to end rather early. As soon as the game is sufficiently balanced and games go to the late game more often, you will see it. The games, on the whole, cannot be longer than what we're seeing in HotS though. Once you hit the 25-30 minute mark in LotV bases 1-3 are completely mined out and you're in a split-map situation, usually. It's completely crazy, with fights happening everywhere (at least in Archon mode, probably not so much in 1v1). | ||
BronzeKnee
United States5207 Posts
On October 09 2015 15:56 Nezgar wrote: Since it came up a few times, this is how the balance in the past 12 months looked like (according to Aligulac): That's... the most balanced period this game ever had. The win rates in each match-up have been between 46-53% the entire time. For comparison, this is how the entire graph for SC2 looks like: I've highlighted the past 12 months. If we can trust Aligulac ratings then yes, the game has near perfect balance right now. Whether or not the individual match-ups have their own problems or not is a different matter entirely, though. I dislike watching Mech vZ atm, but that doesn't mean that the races are severely imbalanced right now. Oh crap. It happened. I sent a message to Aliguac a long time asking for this chart, because it had important information in regards to balance the other chart they have up does not, and avoids several problems. They listened and created it because they are awesome, but warned me people might misuse it. "The performance difference chart shows the approximate difference between actual performance as evidenced by results and predicted performance by rating" So what it shows is that if there a trend where Terran is too strong, it will predict that lesser Terran players will beat better Protoss players. Therefore, even if Terran is too strong, if lesser Terran players are beating better Protoss players, the chart will have everything at the 50% line, because it is as predicted. Overtime time, patches. the map pool and the metagame disrupts balance, so while that lesser Terran might have won against the superior Protoss earlier, he is now losing. If we charted that, it would show a dramatic rise for Protoss above 50% and drop for Terran below 50%. Despite how the chart would look, the game would be more balanced. Overtime, the chart would predict this new metagame where the lesser Terran loses to the superior Protoss, and it would trend toward 50% until reaching it. So this chart does not show or predict balance, it just shows when the performance of a race changes. The chart is very useful when you have an established baseline to see how certain races responds to changes in the map pool, metagame or balance patches. But it is the this last, key line that matters more than anything when it comes to this chart: "However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes." So you misrepresented the chart, and thus you're argument is based on flawed data. The balance report is the chart you meant to use, but unfortunately for your argument, it is far more volatile. | ||
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
and we don’t want to risk Zerg being on the stronger side for BlizzCon finals Blizzard admitting that the current map pool is good for Zerg I guess. Zerg is probably the weakest race but has the best maps, and they don't want to create another late 2014 situation where they buffed Terran right after giving them a favored map pool. | ||
PVJ
Hungary4995 Posts
On October 09 2015 15:56 Nezgar wrote: Since it came up a few times, this is how the balance in the past 12 months looked like (according to Aligulac): That's... the most balanced period this game ever had. The win rates in each match-up have been between 46-53% the entire time. For comparison, this is how the entire graph for SC2 looks like: I've highlighted the past 12 months. If we can trust Aligulac ratings then yes, the game has near perfect balance right now. Whether or not the individual match-ups have their own problems or not is a different matter entirely, though. I dislike watching Mech vZ atm, but that doesn't mean that the races are severely imbalanced right now. That's admirable but it doesn't make the game more interesting | ||
Dingodile
4121 Posts
On October 13 2015 19:14 PVJ wrote: That's admirable but it doesn't make the game more interesting perfect description why 50-50 or 33-33-33 balance doesn't attract anything. | ||
| ||