It'll be interesting to see if everything stays balanced as more people play on it... not that I see how this would unbalance anything. I like to keep the faith that Blizz did this for a good reason, i guess.
Community Feedback Update - March 30
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Meepman
Canada610 Posts
It'll be interesting to see if everything stays balanced as more people play on it... not that I see how this would unbalance anything. I like to keep the faith that Blizz did this for a good reason, i guess. | ||
hiroshOne
Poland424 Posts
| ||
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
MockHamill
Sweden1793 Posts
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage. I think it is a good idea. I like starting with more workers since it speeds up the first few minutes of the game, but I do not like running out of resources so fast. When to expand should be a choice but in LOTV there is no choice, you either expand non-stop or you die. | ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage. 1500 minerals was common in BW but not entirely consistent through all maps. KeSPA frequently tweaked mineral node counts, mineral node values, and gas geyser values on a fair number of maps. See: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/107009-proleague-maps-updated http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/100790-proleague-09-10-map-preview http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/214899-spl-10-11-r5-new-maps It was a very clever way of balancing map winrates in tournaments in the absence of balance patches, and hopefully mapmakers can attempt something similar in SC2 now that Blizzard loosened up their rules a bit in the last map contest. | ||
PharaphobiaSC
Czech Republic457 Posts
On April 07 2017 10:37 AnossSc2 wrote: I totally agree. I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player. This is the game 4 : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/133925792 We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need... If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see. just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On April 07 2017 21:16 PharaphobiaSC wrote: just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta? Really? Like... really? | ||
Ransomstarcraft
75 Posts
"You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta? Really? Like... really?" You ever heard of "multiple causation"? Both of those issues caused the long games. In the game shared by Anoss, the first 4 minutes were spent building workers and infrastructure. I'm willing to admit that trying out different numbers of workers at the beginning is a decent idea, but there are many other design issues than that and a lot of you have invested way too much hope in this idea that "6 worker start would fix everything". Here are some other issues to consider right now: 1. Static defense - Static defense doesn't work properly when you introduce ravagers, disruptors and now with the buffed siege tank. Static defense goes from worthwhile to nearly worthless, depending on the static defense and its location. 2. Unit design - certain units have massive utility (for example, the adept) while some units have almost no utility (the Thor). Meanwhile, something like the ghost is a niche unit, and those have a place. 3. Total unit cohesion by race - Zerg units, somehow, all seem to mesh well together. Protoss less so, and Terran the least. (In my opinion.) If the transformation of Terran mechanical units is the problem, remove transformation as a gimmick on them. For instance, I think the Hellion should exist as one unit and the Firebat as a completely separate unit from the barracks. These are just some of the hugely important things to discuss about game design, and a lot of this is being drowned out here. As some others have said, I think it's time to start a separate thread on the forums about your "6 or 12 worker" discussion. | ||
Weltall
Italy83 Posts
I'm pro 12 workers because it really decreased dead time in early game, the main problem is building time and production time didn't been adjusted accordingly. This mean, a fast production race, with a faster eco, gains an overall benefit. If we examine all three races, this benefit is for zerg at most, then terran, then protoss goes last. Zerg has a very faster unit production since it's a reactornary race. Terran has a fast production since bio last for all the game stages and units need to come out fast far entire game. Protoss had a slower production time but units are (were..) powerful; this is why protoss had so many aoe options in hots, to balance the unit productions. In lotv, protoss aoe got nerfed for no reason (imho) and simply every units does not fit anymore game design because they got outmassed by other two races. This bring to a situation were gate units should be microed as hell to get profit in early to mid game, because bread and butter units from terrans and zerg (read roaches and bio mines) beat every protoss gate composition even in smaller numbers (that's why protoss are disappearing and numbers are decreasing). And this, just to rush and MASS t2-t3 units, that in hots were usefull also in low numbers, while in lotv they need to be in big numbers to be efficient (look immortals in pvz). I think the game would greatly benefit from a production-time-rearranging patch; first protoss population will increase a bit, second the game could be more enjoyable at all levels. The best, as asked since lotv release, would be to redistribuite some power in the whole race, decreasing some late game power for better gate units. | ||
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
The LOTV economy rework happened because the beginning of games were drawn out and boring. That is a general subjective fact that the community believed, and begged Blizzard to fix. Instead of looking at the economy or lack of harass units as the problem, I recommend looking at other reasons why passive play in the beginning of games (the early game) was so prominent in WOL and HOTS. Willingness to get past the early game without interacting with your opponent comes back to mechanics. Naturally, the longer a game goes on then the more possible actions there are. However, in Starcraft 2 (as Catz points out in his video he recently made) the game is more focused on countering units and/or tricking (outsmarting) your opponent. The quality of life features that were added in Starcraft 2 create an environment where people aren't worried about macroing or late game mechanical soundness. Thus, the balance of the game is based more on the power of units, and the strategies used with those units. While mechanics matter in Starcraft 2, they just matter a lot less. Game balance is more of an issue in Starcraft 2 for the sole reason that no amount of mechanical skill over your opponent matters as much as strategies. Essentially, no matter what unit changes or economy changes they make in Starcraft 2 the game will be imbalanced. Someone is always going to be finding new (or reusing old) strategies that catch their opponent off-guard, and/or using units that quietly get buffed over time. They have shifted the priority of what skills determine the outcome of games. Edit: Here is Catz post about it. I've been talking about it for years on the Battle.net forums (the cesspool of Starcraft 2). But Catz hits the nail on the head. Moreover, he even provides some interesting stats between both BW and Starcraft 2 pros. + Show Spoiler + On April 06 2017 10:48 ROOTCatZ wrote: Some of my main perceived differences between BW and SC2. For reference I've been playing StarCraft for something like 17 years, the last 7.5 being in SC2 and the rest in Vanilla/BW. Hope you enjoy! | ||
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On March 31 2017 05:51 jpg06051992 wrote: Lol, the balance team and their incessant habit of noticing an issue that exists and coming up with some backwards and nonsensical approach to fixing the issue. PvZ variety is fine except for the fact that Adepts are superior to Zealots and Stalkers in pretty much every single way. Beefier, ranged, scouting, puts "fake" but very real pressure on, and 2 shots workers. Stop making things more complex then they really are, nerf the Adept and give the Zealot and Stalker some early game buffs for Christ's sake, I'm a Zerg player and can realize this. Also, Skytoss is so cancerous that it's even cancer in it's own mirror match up, nerf the damn Carrier but don't cut it's balls off, once again, how hard is this really? The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd. Lol, their little Raven discussion, "Terran already has powerful harassment tools out the wazzoo, so we're going to take this broken and OP harassment option, make it 3 shot instead of 2 shot workers, and call it a day." The Raven is hilariously bad on a design stand point, trading out mana for free damage is just begging to be massed up in a turtle fashion. Why not change the Raven to a strict utility unit more like the Science Vessel? Terrans problem in the late game is that bio has no beef/staying power on the field, let the Raven fill a hole that the Terran arsenal has maybe? 5 years later and somehow David Kim is still in charge of these ludicrous "balance changes" as the games player base slowly but surely dwindles and tournaments get less funding from less viewers. How is this game even going to compete with a remastered BW which already crushes SC2 on a stream viewership level. I don't want SC2 to continue to shrink, and while I'm sitting here praising the Starcraft Gods for delivering us a remastered BW I summarily curse them for the balance teams ineptitude. David Kim is like a bad coach in the NFL who has been grandfathered in because the manager likes him. At this point, it's just bad for the health of the game. New Balance Update - David Kim has been removed from lead balance and design and replaced with someone who knows what he's doing ^ The only patch this game really needs. User was warned for this post Happy? | ||
MockHamill
Sweden1793 Posts
1. Thors currently only work against mutas. They are too weak against Carrier/Tempest/BC/Liberators for mech to be playbable. Thor need to have the its single target anti-air damage increased. 2. Swarm Hosts are too cheap which means you can get alot of them too early before mech can have an answer. Swarm Hosts need a price increase. | ||
StraKo
Germany96 Posts
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage. exactly my thoughts avilo. I think LotV's economy had really negative impact on the game in multiple ways, i described some things earlier in the thread. My biggest concern is how incredible game ending harass is in lotv and how fragile macro games are. | ||
404AlphaSquad
838 Posts
On April 07 2017 10:37 AnossSc2 wrote: I totally agree. I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player. This is the game 4 : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/133925792 We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need... If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see. Omg I really miss the old pacing of the game. LotV has really destroyed so much. | ||
c0sm0naut
United States1229 Posts
i like the idea of returning to 1500 per patch (every patch!) but a player lik you should know that protoss would be much stronger than they already are with this change | ||
reneg
United States859 Posts
On April 09 2017 01:14 c0sm0naut wrote: avilo, i like the idea of returning to 1500 per patch (every patch!) but a player lik you should know that protoss would be much stronger than they already are with this change I honestly think a good solution to a lot of these things would be to increase the overall amount of minerals per patch in the game, but decrease the worker efficiency. Instead of being able to get 3 nearly perfectly efficient on far patches, and 3 with poor efficiency on close ones, have it be you can get 2 inefficiently on close, and 2.5 on long, which would result in an enormous income boost for expanding, but still allow people to sit back and play a 1/2 base style, if that's more their thing. Expanding should be a risk - that you get rewarded from more, rather than a full blown necessity after 3 minutes into the game. | ||
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
| ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On April 09 2017 03:09 jpg06051992 wrote: Hopefully the new guy taking over will want to do some type of a major balance and redesign, this should be a new era for SC2, not continuing David Kim's woefully inept and misguided balance strategies. There's no "new guy". It's the same balance team. David Kim, a member of the balance team, is moving to a different project. | ||
Ransomstarcraft
75 Posts
Here is my account of what we would gain with this change: Positives of returning the full 1500 minerals to each patch: - less emphasis on harassment as you don't have to expand as quickly. - encourages earlier aggression since the second base doesn't have to come immediately. - adding earlier aggression means more diversity in builds for all races. Negatives: - it encourages turtle mech, and turtle toss to Carriers Balance team, please give this a shot at some point. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15564 Posts
| ||
| ||