|
4 Posts
Original Post: Battle.net
StarCraft II 4.0 Patch Notes
GENERALStarCraft II is now free to play!
- The Wings of Liberty campaign is now free to all users.
- The Unranked ladder is now free for all users.
- The Ranked ladder can now be unlocked after achieving 10 “first wins of the day” or purchasing any
- campaign or War Chest (when available).
- All Co-op commanders are now available to play up to level 5.
- Raynor, Kerrigan, and Artanis are still free and can be played to max level.
- Players who owned Wings of Liberty, Heart of the Swarm, Legacy of the Void, or Nova Covert Ops
- before October 31 2017 will receive an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits.
- Learn more in our blog.
- New Co-op Commander and Announcer: Han and Horner
- The first duo commander, Mira Han and Matt Horner, combine the might of the Dominion military with the reckless and explosive power of Mira’s mercenaries.
- Learn more in our blog.
- New Co-op Mission: Part and Parcel
- We’re proud to incorporate the winning map of the Rock the Cabinet 2017 contest into our official Co-op Mission rotation.
- Collect parts to assist General Davis in rebuilding her war machine to destroy hybrid monstrosities.
- Learn more in our blog.
- The Wings of Liberty, Heart of the Swarm, and Legacy of the Void ladders have now been consolidated into a single ladder using units, balance, and data from Legacy of the Void.
- The Expansion Level selection for Wings of Liberty or Heart of the Swarm balance games has been moved to Custom > Melee.
- New players logging into StarCraft II for the first time will now be brought to a new Welcome experience.
- Players can choose their RTS experience level.
- Beginner level players will be guided through the in-game tutorial.
- Players can choose to watch introduction videos or jump straight into Campaign, Co-op, or Versus mode.
- The Profile has been refreshed and now includes information about Co-op Missions.
- The Co-op section has been refreshed for improved UI clarity.
- A new Random Commander option has been added.
- Weekly Mutations can now be played at Commander Level 1.
- The Multiplayer section has been renamed to “Versus.”
- The new Versus screen has been updated and reorganized with new visuals and improved UI clarity.
- 2017 Ladder Season 4 has begun!
- A new Siege Tank trophy top can now be earned from winning an Automated Tournament.
- A new “Auto Join” button has been added to the Arcade subsection of Custom, as well as the Arcade map info panels.
- Auto Join will search for an open lobby for the selected map, and if it cannot find one, it will open a new public lobby for that map with you as the host.
- Use the pulldown next to the button to set the mode to search for.
- The “Play Again” button has been brought back to the score screen for custom Melee and Arcade games. This button will search for an open lobby for the Map/Mode you just played. If it can’t find one, it will create a lobby for you.
- The second set of portraits featuring remaining eight players who finished at the top of the WCS 2017 are now available to players who purchased War Chest: BlizzCon 2017.
BALANCEGeneral- Large mineral node values increased from 1500 to 1800. Smaller mineral node values remain the same at 900.
- Vespene Geyser values increased from 2000 to 2250.
Terran- Raven
- Removed Auto-Turret, Point Defense Drone, and Seeker Missile abilities.
- Added Interference Matrix, Repair Drone, and Anti-Armor Missile abilities.
- Interference Matrix: Disables a Mechanical or Psionic unit rendering it unable to attack or use abilities for 6 seconds.
- Repair Drone: Deploys a drone that automatically repairs nearby friendly mechanical units for 90 seconds.
Repairs life at 12.6 life per second, drains 1 energy for every 3 life repaired.
- Anti-Armor Missile: Deploys a Missile which activates after 2 seconds and pursues the target units, dealing 30 splash damage upon contact and reducing armor of affected units by 3 for 21 seconds.
- New upgrade "Enhanced Munitions"
- Research from Starport Tech Lab
- Cost: 150 Minerals/150 Vespene Gas/79 seconds.
- Increases the Anti-Armor Missile's explosion radius by 20% and its tracking range by 50%.
- Liberator
- No longer receives a sight range bonus after transforming into Defender mode but will receive vision of the targeted location.
- Cyclone
- First four shots will fire quickly for the Cyclone's Lock On ability.
- New upgrade "Rapid Fire Launchers"
- Research from Factory Tech Lab
- Cost: 150 Minerals / 150 Vespene Gas / 79 seconds.
- Increases the attack speed of the first 12 shots of the Cyclone's Lock On ability.
- Ghost
- Starts with the Cloak ability.
- Starting energy decreased from 75 to 50.
- New upgrade "Moebius Reactor"
- Research from Ghost Academy.
- Cost: 100 Minerals/100 Vespene Gas/57 seconds.
- Increases starting energy of Ghosts by 25.
- Factory Tech Lab
- New upgrade "Smart Servos"
- Cost: 150 Minerals/150 Vespene Gas/79 seconds.
- Allows Hellions, Hellbats, Vikings, and Thors to transform quickly between combat modes.
- Marauder
- Marauder projectiles now have a blue trail after Concussive Shells upgrade is applied.
- Widow Mine
- Widow Mines are now revealed while Sentinel Missile is on cooldown.
Protoss- Mothership Core unit removed.
- Nexus
- Chrono Boost costs 50 energy and causes the target structure to operate 100% faster for 10 seconds.
- Nexus now has energy, 200 maximum.
- Nexus starting energy is 50.
- "Mass Recall" ability recalls units owned by the player in the target area to the Nexus.
- 50 energy cost.
- Warp out pause duration is 3.6 seconds.
- Warp in duration is 0.4 seconds.
- 130 second global cooldown for all Mass Recalls across all Nexus structures.
- New defensive structure: Shield Battery.
- Recharges the shields of nearby friendly units.
- Warped in by Probes.
- Requires Cybernetics Core.
- 75 mineral cost.
- 28.6 second warp in duration.
- 200 Shields/200 Health/100 Maximum and starting Energy
- Restores shields of a single friendly unit within 6 range.
- Shields restore at 50.4 shields per second, drains 1 energy for every 3 shields restored.
- Auto-cast affects units and Photon Cannons only.
- Mothership
- Mothership's "Mass Recall" changed to "Strategic Recall."
- Strategic Recall will recall all player units in the target area to the Mothership.
- Strategic Recall does not have a cooldown and does not share a global cooldown with Nexus Mass Recall.
- Disruptor
- Purification Nova will detonate when in contact with an enemy unit.
- Damage remains at 145 (+55 shields).
- Damage radius remains at 1.5
- Detonation radius is 0.25.
- Will not trigger on enemy structures or changelings.
- Purification Nova cooldown reduced from 21.4 to 14.3 seconds.
- Observer
- New ability "Surveillance Mode.": Increases vision by 25% and immobilizes the observer.
- High Templar
- New weapon "Psi Blast."
- Damage: 4.
- Weapon speed: 1.25.
- Range: 6.
- Targets ground units.
- Colossus
- Thermal Lance base range increased from 6 to 7.
- Thermal Lance damage changed from 12 to 10 (+5 light).
- Protoss ground weapon upgrades will add +1 to base and +1 to light.
- Extended Thermal Lance cost reduced from 200/200 to 150/150.
- Range upgrade increased Thermal Lance range by +2 instead of +3.
- Carrier
- Interceptor cost increased from 10 to 15.
- Stalker
- Particle Disruptors weapon damage changed from 10 (+4 Armored) to 15 (+6 Armored).
- Weapon speed changed from 1 to 1.54.
- Receives +2 base damage per level of Protoss Ground Weapon upgrades.
- Oracle
- Revelation: Duration reduced from 43 to 30 seconds.
- Stasis Ward
- Will no longer affect Zerg larva or eggs.
- Stasis Ward has a 170 second timed life duration.
- Pulsar Beam weapon changed from Spell to Normal damage. Armor will now reduce the Pulsar Beam damage.
- Adept
- Shade sight increased from 2 to 4.
- Warp Prism
- Visual effect added for units picked up by the Warp Prism.
Zerg- Infestor
- Undetected burrowed Infestors will be more visible on low graphics quality settings.
- Infested Terrans
- Infested Gauss Rifle damage reduced from 8 to 6.
- Infested Gauss Rifle no longer targets air units.
- New weapon "Infested Rockets."
- Targets air units only.
- Damage: 14
- Period: 0.95
- Range: 6
- Prioritized over the Infested Gauss Rifle ground weapon.
- Zerg missile attack and ground carapace upgrades will affect Infested Terrans.
- Fungal Growth
- Slows the target's movement speed by 75%.
- Radius increased from 2.0 to 2.5.
- Overseer
- New ability "Oversight": Increases vision by 25% and immobilizes the Overseer.
- Viper
Parasitic Bomb
- Damage increased from 60 to 120 over 7 seconds.
- Damage no longer stacks.
- 0.7 second delay before Parasitic Bomb effects begin.
- Swarm Host
- Movement speed reduced from 4.13 to 3.15.
- Lurker Den
- Lurker Den is morphed from the Drone instead of the Hydralisk Den.
- Cost: 100 Minerals/150 Vespene Gas/86 Seconds.
- New upgrade "Adaptive Talons"
- Reduces Lurker burrow time from 2 to 0.7 seconds and increase movement speed by 10%.
- Cost: 150 Minerals/150 Vespene Gas/54 Seconds.
- Hive requirement.
- Overlord
- Movement speed increased from 0.82 to .902. Afterwards, Evolved Pneumatized Carapace will increase the Overlord’s movement to the same value of 2.63.
Full patch notes for Co-op Mode, StarCraft II API, StarCraft II Editor, and Bug Fixes at Battle.net
|
Widow mine was not nerfed.
|
Hows this launch going for everyone?
|
Launch still in progress. Na server should be done in one hour.
|
Widow mine is nerfed, I just tested it online.
Will stay away from Multiplayer though until Blizzard emergency patches Terran, both bio and mech are basically screwed.
|
|
as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward.
|
The balance updates seem beefy. I'mma play some games tomorrow.
|
No reaper buffs
|
Quite a good update. Excited to try out new co-op commander.
|
I kinda wish ppl who owned the games prior, would got more than a skin or 3 portraits. Like coop heroes to lvl 10 or something. Oh well
|
EUROPE HERE ----ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 14th my ass!
|
Blizzard always does this to Europe never on the day they say
|
So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right.
|
How do you downlad it for free ? they are asking me to pay '--
|
On November 15 2017 07:06 Mun_Su wrote: How do you downlad it for free ? they are asking me to pay '--
Not live on EU
Overlord Movement speed increased from 0.82 to .902. I... cannot... wait...
|
A patch much needed !
Before anyone complains about balance after this change (From what I've seen so far, fellow Terrans i'm looking at you ), please remember that we've only seen Homestory Cup played on this patch. (And let's be honest, the korean terran players that were there definitely weren't on the same skill level as the koreans of the other two races)
Now, if you're a more stubborn guy, and want changes made right now because the game is soooo imbalanced, I'ma just leave this image here ... And tell you, not without pleasure I have to admit, to "LET THE META SETTLE" like you've told us Protoss players to do for months and months after each nerf
|
On November 15 2017 07:01 JackONeill wrote: So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right. Is the determination of what is poorly designed, silly, or imbalanced yours alone to make?
I like most of the changes.
|
15 november and still no patch in EU
|
On November 15 2017 07:43 vidium wrote: 15 november and still no patch in EU You can swap to Americas and play on that for a while, EU always gets stuff a day later.
|
|
StarCraft threads always do well on /r/Games, they're usually comprised of people saying some of the most inane things about how StarCraft killed RTS games by making everything about APM and how years ago they could just play their friends with 5 APM and not care.
|
On November 15 2017 07:55 Ansibled wrote: StarCraft threads always do well on /r/Games, they're usually comprised of people saying some of the most inane things about how StarCraft killed RTS games by making everything about APM and how years ago they could just play their friends with 5 APM and not care. He okay, interesting. I think the timing, with EA shitting the bed, helped as well.
|
On November 15 2017 07:55 Ansibled wrote: StarCraft threads always do well on /r/Games, they're usually comprised of people saying some of the most inane things about how StarCraft killed RTS games by making everything about APM and how years ago they could just play their friends with 5 APM and not care. "Ugh, Starcraft. I want RTS games with strategy, not just spammy clickfests!"
|
anyone experieicng crashes for no reason in midle of games? starting happening after this new patch
|
I must admit that I didn't follow much the changes in preparation, so this comes as a real shock to me.
Some of these things look fine, I am almost sad of not being terran, because the new raven looks quite fun (even though probably pretty useless in actual games). But the most absurd is the Disruptor, they have essentially killed the unit. Also Stasis Ward timer seems unnecessary and just plainly annoying.
|
On November 15 2017 08:47 Major wrote: anyone experieicng crashes for no reason in midle of games? starting happening after this new patch It's happening to a lot of people, Blizzard said they're aware of the issue and are working on a fix.
|
I am really hyped, and now I am getting tons of crashes on ladder losing tons of MMR. guess it's happening to a lot of people I see... shit -_-
|
On November 15 2017 08:47 Major wrote: anyone experieicng crashes for no reason in midle of games? starting happening after this new patch Yeah it happened to me once so far
|
I'm glad there is still the option to play WoL/HotS even tho the ladders have merged.
|
says down for maintenance but people are streaming it?
|
As far as I can see there are no changes from the balance patch that Homestory Cup was played on. Does anyone see a difference?
|
On November 15 2017 09:28 sneakyfox wrote: As far as I can see there are no changes from the balance patch that Homestory Cup was played on. Does anyone see a difference?
mines stay invisible now
|
On November 15 2017 09:29 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:28 sneakyfox wrote: As far as I can see there are no changes from the balance patch that Homestory Cup was played on. Does anyone see a difference? mines stay invisible now They don't.
|
On November 15 2017 09:31 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:29 Zaros wrote:On November 15 2017 09:28 sneakyfox wrote: As far as I can see there are no changes from the balance patch that Homestory Cup was played on. Does anyone see a difference? mines stay invisible now They don't. they do.
|
On November 15 2017 07:52 Musicus wrote: I am so hyped, time to play more and get out of dia 2 finally!
I was rather surprised about how many people seemed interested in sc2 on https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7cukui/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_now_free/
This might actually really help sc2 in the long run.
Of course, it's starcraft The name alone will have people at least check it out and I think co-op mode will have people stick around too. Not sure it will help the ladder much though.
Widow Mine Widow Mines are now revealed while Sentinel Missile is on cooldown.
|
On November 15 2017 09:31 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:29 Zaros wrote:On November 15 2017 09:28 sneakyfox wrote: As far as I can see there are no changes from the balance patch that Homestory Cup was played on. Does anyone see a difference? mines stay invisible now They don't.
ah sorry they updated the notes earlier they dropped the mine change.
|
On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward.
The problem with widowmines is the drop on mineral lines. Too much damage potential for no risk.
|
On November 15 2017 07:01 JackONeill wrote: So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right.
And don’t forget next year it‘s rinse and repeat, new major balance and design changes will be announced while they try to squeeze out every penny there is left with shitty skins, warchests and whatnot, only thing I really can get behind is announcers and additional campaign stuff like Nova DLC, but we have to face the bitter truth, SC2 will be in low(er) effort mode from now on, since the influx of new players won‘t be as big as people hope it would be.
Worst thing for me personally is that they merged all different ladders AND still have no option to disable skins for old school players. And fuck this High Templar attack, this is so stupid...
Edit: And they even left this observer/overseer vision thing in?!?! What a joke, seriously.
|
On November 15 2017 09:49 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward. The problem with widowmines is the drop on mineral lines. Too much damage potential for no risk.
So going by that logic Oracles still must be crazy OP, right?
|
On November 15 2017 09:50 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 07:01 JackONeill wrote: So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right. And don’t forget next year it‘s rinse and repeat, new major balance and design changes will be announced while they try to squeeze out every penny there is left with shitty skins, warchests and whatnot, only thing I really can get behind is announcers and additional campaign stuff like Nova DLC, but we have to face the bitter truth, SC2 will be in low(er) effort mode from now on, since the influx of new players won‘t be as big as people hope it would be. Worst thing for me personally is that they merged all different ladders AND still have no option to disable skins for old school players. And fuck this High Templar attack, this is so stupid... Edit: And they even left this observer/overseer vision thing in?!?! What a joke, seriously. Wouldnt you say SC2 is already in lower effort mode like in 2017? I don't imagine it will get lower than it is now. That was the point of them making the cosmetics and Co-Op microtransactions to begin with, they have incentive to keep working on the game after the core of their team has moved onto the next big thing.
|
Are terrans ever happy with a patch tho?
|
On November 15 2017 09:56 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:50 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 07:01 JackONeill wrote: So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right. And don’t forget next year it‘s rinse and repeat, new major balance and design changes will be announced while they try to squeeze out every penny there is left with shitty skins, warchests and whatnot, only thing I really can get behind is announcers and additional campaign stuff like Nova DLC, but we have to face the bitter truth, SC2 will be in low(er) effort mode from now on, since the influx of new players won‘t be as big as people hope it would be. Worst thing for me personally is that they merged all different ladders AND still have no option to disable skins for old school players. And fuck this High Templar attack, this is so stupid... Edit: And they even left this observer/overseer vision thing in?!?! What a joke, seriously. Wouldnt you say SC2 is already in lower effort mode like in 2017? I don't imagine it will get lower than it is now. That was the point of them making the cosmetics and Co-Op microtransactions to begin with, they have incentive to keep working on the game after the core of their team has moved onto the next big thing.
Yeah, you‘re probably right, guess I‘m just concerned they will find a way to switch back another gear or two while milking the remnants of their loyal fanbase.
|
On November 15 2017 09:57 xTJx wrote: Are terrans ever happy with a patch tho?
Well, I personally would be happy if they at some point stopped balance patching the game for multiplayer ladder altogether.
|
On November 15 2017 10:09 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:56 lestye wrote:On November 15 2017 09:50 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 07:01 JackONeill wrote: So we're up for 6 months of nonsense because they mindlessly jammed into the game everything but the gaz mule, regardless of how silly, poorly designed or unbalanced it is ? All right. And don’t forget next year it‘s rinse and repeat, new major balance and design changes will be announced while they try to squeeze out every penny there is left with shitty skins, warchests and whatnot, only thing I really can get behind is announcers and additional campaign stuff like Nova DLC, but we have to face the bitter truth, SC2 will be in low(er) effort mode from now on, since the influx of new players won‘t be as big as people hope it would be. Worst thing for me personally is that they merged all different ladders AND still have no option to disable skins for old school players. And fuck this High Templar attack, this is so stupid... Edit: And they even left this observer/overseer vision thing in?!?! What a joke, seriously. Wouldnt you say SC2 is already in lower effort mode like in 2017? I don't imagine it will get lower than it is now. That was the point of them making the cosmetics and Co-Op microtransactions to begin with, they have incentive to keep working on the game after the core of their team has moved onto the next big thing. Yeah, you‘re probably right, guess I‘m just concerned they will find a way to switch back another gear or two while milking the remnants of their loyal fanbase. I'm confused would you rather they do nothing?
|
On November 15 2017 09:54 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:49 xTJx wrote:On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward. The problem with widowmines is the drop on mineral lines. Too much damage potential for no risk. So going by that logic Oracles still must be crazy OP, right? Terran players always build a Factory. Protoss players don't always build a Stargate. If widow mines do little to no damage, the Terran players hasn't lost out on much. If oracles do little to no damage, the Protoss player has likely lost out on investing in tech that has more utility in the mid game.
|
United States97248 Posts
On November 15 2017 08:47 Major wrote: anyone experieicng crashes for no reason in midle of games? starting happening after this new patch happened a lot last patch too. just something you have to come to expect these days I guess...
|
You're kidding me that oracles don't have energy anymore.
|
How do I win TvZ? Also, do I have to open 2 rax every single TvP now? Oracle in my mineral line at 3 minutes? Really?
|
On November 15 2017 11:14 Doodsmack wrote: You're kidding me that oracles don't have energy anymore.
Is that true? I must have missed that in the patch notes
|
pretty good patch I hope the winrates and tournament placings are more even this year for protoss!
|
On November 15 2017 11:27 penguinseatsocks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 11:14 Doodsmack wrote: You're kidding me that oracles don't have energy anymore. Is that true? I must have missed that in the patch notes It's not in the patch notes and must be a bug
|
I just lost to a mass Oracle build and thought it was a bit ridiculous ... what do you mean no energy bug? >_<
|
On November 15 2017 11:27 penguinseatsocks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 11:14 Doodsmack wrote: You're kidding me that oracles don't have energy anymore. Is that true? I must have missed that in the patch notes
Oh I think I was wrong...it says their damage was changed from "spell damage" to "normal damage" whatever that means.
|
On November 15 2017 09:57 xTJx wrote: Are terrans ever happy with a patch tho? i'm terran and i'm having fun with this patch.
some people are too attached to their rank and get all rankled when it goes down.
|
On November 15 2017 12:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 11:27 penguinseatsocks wrote:On November 15 2017 11:14 Doodsmack wrote: You're kidding me that oracles don't have energy anymore. Is that true? I must have missed that in the patch notes Oh I think I was wrong...it says their damage was changed from "spell damage" to "normal damage" whatever that means. armor reduce their damage now
|
On November 15 2017 10:45 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:54 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 09:49 xTJx wrote:On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward. The problem with widowmines is the drop on mineral lines. Too much damage potential for no risk. So going by that logic Oracles still must be crazy OP, right? Terran players always build a Factory. Protoss players don't always build a Stargate. If widow mines do little to no damage, the Terran players hasn't lost out on much. If oracles do little to no damage, the Protoss player has likely lost out on investing in tech that has more utility in the mid game.
except that you should lose out if you go for a proxy and it gets scouted, right now you realy dont you can do it evrey game with litearly no downside.
|
On November 15 2017 12:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:57 xTJx wrote: Are terrans ever happy with a patch tho? i'm terran and i'm having fun with this patch. some people are too attached to their rank and get all rankled when it goes down.
well i think your a minority, I'm just playing my off races until things get changed which I'm prity sure they will. Untill than im going to abuse the hell out of proxy oracles and shield batteries.
|
8716 Posts
unplayable from technical problems
lag and game crashing
so many games were played on the test mod with no issue and now what's going on?
i dont get how design changes can cause these issues anyway
|
On November 15 2017 12:48 NonY wrote:unplayable from technical problems lag and game crashing so many games were played on the test mod with no issue and now what's going on? i dont get how design changes can cause these issues anyway The menus feel much faster so it appears some optimizations have been made, would that be a reason? My game just randomly crashed on me, there is breaking news on the launcher acknowledging the issue so its being looked at.
|
On November 15 2017 12:48 NonY wrote:unplayable from technical problems lag and game crashing so many games were played on the test mod with no issue and now what's going on? i dont get how design changes can cause these issues anyway
They made several UI changes, I imagine that it lead to some bugs.
|
8716 Posts
also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage
|
On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage Yes that's the exact same thing as selling lootboxes that increases your characters cooldowns, attacks,defense, and special heroes.
|
On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage
You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously.
|
Just me or does the mine feel like its too costly for what it is now? I know its early, but I was just playing against mines and its like "oh just sac this one unit and clear it for free" over and over
|
On November 15 2017 14:05 NKexquisite wrote: Just me or does the mine feel like its too costly for what it is now? I know its early, but I was just playing against mines and its like "oh just sac this one unit and clear it for free" over and over I was hoping they would re-balance the mine around the stealth change during the test queue, but I guess we'll have to wait now that everyone is "testing" out the new balance changes.
|
On November 15 2017 11:16 ihatevideogames wrote: How do I win TvZ? Also, do I have to open 2 rax every single TvP now? Oracle in my mineral line at 3 minutes? Really?
although mine nerf hurts I think tvz will largely be fine its not like there were that many situations were having stealthed mines actually mattered vs decent zerg players, TvP on the other hand.....
|
On November 15 2017 07:26 Snarosc wrote:A patch much needed ! Before anyone complains about balance after this change (From what I've seen so far, fellow Terrans i'm looking at you ), please remember that we've only seen Homestory Cup played on this patch. (And let's be honest, the korean terran players that were there definitely weren't on the same skill level as the koreans of the other two races) Now, if you're a more stubborn guy, and want changes made right now because the game is soooo imbalanced, I'ma just leave this image here ... And tell you, not without pleasure I have to admit, to "LET THE META SETTLE" like you've told us Protoss players to do for months and months after each nerf Trolololol!
I was going to post something similar for all the Terrans complaining, but that will do. It is time for some real balance.
And it is time for me to play Starcraft again.
|
So after playing a ton of protoss today my thoughts are that the direction of the changes is good, I like the concept of the shield battery alot. I really like the new stalker It feels much better now. The new disruptor also feels better in my opinion. What I dont like is the incredible strength of early all ins in tvp, blizzard needs to fix this. I think that there are a variety of feasible solutions. heres a list of some possible ones
1. turret now requires rax, this is the simplest, Its makes it so Terran is as burneded as zerg is to build turrets and wont have to invest into the engi bay to hold proxy stargate rushes. downside is that it is essentialy a nerf to all air and stealth strategies against Terran just like the spore change was awhile back for Zerg. It would really weaken banshees in tvt unfortunately.
2.stargate build time nerf +30 seconds to make a stargate. This would effect pvz, possibly to much but It fixes the problem, if stargate takes longer terran can have enough marines to deal with it more effectivly.
3.revert widow mine change, probably the easiest, will make alot of bad players whine but its otherwise alright.
4. Buff cyclone anti air significantly, personally this would be my preffered solution, not only does it solve this problem but its an overall buff to mech anti air, which has been lacking. especially with the buffs to zerg anti air and mass raven nerfs I think it would fit well with this patch to, gives mech a bit more potency in the early game since it lost alot of its late game punch.
|
the shield battery + buffed stalkers means we are going to see some pretty ridiculous blink stalker all ins
|
On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward.
I agree with that. Now they only shot one time and then die.
Imo the competely new Raven sucks.
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On November 15 2017 07:55 Ansibled wrote: StarCraft threads always do well on /r/Games, they're usually comprised of people saying some of the most inane things about how StarCraft killed RTS games by making everything about APM and how years ago they could just play their friends with 5 APM and not care.
/r/Games is basically /r/consoleGames though and sc2 doesn't do well on consoles
---
On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage
Not on the same level but i do hold games like sc2 to a much higher competitive standard than anything that EA has ever or will ever make
|
Don't like most of the changes in the patch, but at least the ever so entitled whiners playing mech are enraged :D
|
On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage
This.
I welcome the Free To Play and i understand that they want to make money with skins etc, no issue with that, but the skins has gone too far and now impact the gameplay way too much, under some skins some units are really really more hard to tell apart (templars, banes).
So now the easy solution is to permit players to opt-out for displaying other people skins.
|
On November 15 2017 13:44 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously.
A game that is not even released yet...
|
On November 15 2017 16:55 Ej_ wrote: Don't like most of the changes in the patch, but at least the ever so entitled whiners playing mech are enraged :D Mech got stronger this patch didn't it?
|
On November 15 2017 17:19 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage This. I welcome the Free To Play and i understand that they want to make money with skins etc, no issue with that, but the skins has gone too far and now impact the gameplay way too much, under some skins some units are really really more hard to tell apart (templars, banes). So now the easy solution is to permit players to opt-out for displaying other people skins.
Exactly. As a game that has been developed as Esport in the first place it really boggles my mind they keep ignoring this.
|
On November 15 2017 17:37 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 16:55 Ej_ wrote: Don't like most of the changes in the patch, but at least the ever so entitled whiners playing mech are enraged :D Mech got stronger this patch didn't it?
No. Mech actually got weaker compared to pre-patch.
Extremly strong Protoss all-ins makes going mech almost impossible. Maybe if the Protoss players is nice and agrees not attack in the first 6 minutes of the game mech can be playable.
In TvZ mech is about the same in the early and midgame. In lategame mech has no answer to BroodLord/Infestor and the new Ravens are close to useless in TvZ so mech lost its late game power.
The only thing that makes mech look stronger is that bio also became weaker.
|
does the raven change weaken mech vZ during the early-game?
nerf #1: no more auto-turret mineral-line harass. no sweat, still got banshees and liberators for that.
nerf #2: no more auto-turret hellbat pushes.
that's it. PDD / seeker missle isn't used in the early-game.
buff #1: repair drone / hellion / hellbat push. by the time your raven pops out and floats across the map, you have 75 energy. not easy to hold this with queen / line / bane.
buff #2: interference matrix seems less useful, but might be handy to disable queens with transfuse energy. this could mean the difference between a hatchery going down or not. has anyone tested this out on overseers? does it disable passive abilities such is detection? if so, this could make banshee pushes a lot stronger...
buff #3: before, when you made an early raven, it was floating in dead space behind Z's mineral lines most of the time. the new raven is more useful at the front-line (attacking Z's third, doing hellion runbys, etc). thanks to this increased synergy between hellion/banshee and the raven, mech players have more opportunities to kill creep tumors for free.
___________________
still not happy with the cyclone. wish they'd scrap the 1A unmicroable ground weapon and bring back the old lock-on. kiting cyclones vs roaches was fun
|
I like the F2P and UI changes, but not the new balance. Fortunately, balance is not that important for low league players (I am plat). I only hope that in the tournaments we will see some Terrans. If not, that may finally and for good kill my interest in this game as esport.
|
I have a feeling the same thing about the new balance. And I'm not going to whine about terrans, but ravens and mines. And 3min proxy oracle + pylon/shield battery.
|
Guys if you are having trouble with skins tell blizzard what needs to change about the skin to fix your problem, they changed the baneling because people told them what was wrong and made it green again do the same for the immortal and overlord and they will change it rather than just blanket complain about skins being IMBA.
|
On November 15 2017 09:54 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 09:49 xTJx wrote:On November 15 2017 06:23 Digitalz1 wrote: as a zerg player i have to agree about the mine change being a little to overboard and kinda makes bio feel a little less viable overall a great patch and solid direction going forward. The problem with widowmines is the drop on mineral lines. Too much damage potential for no risk. So going by that logic Oracles still must be crazy OP, right?
Except that they're not invisible, can be dealt with immediately and you can scout an actual structure that will tell you they're comming, while widowmines would always come as a surprise and shoot twice before detection was done.
|
On November 15 2017 07:26 Snarosc wrote:A patch much needed ! Before anyone complains about balance after this change (From what I've seen so far, fellow Terrans i'm looking at you ), please remember that we've only seen Homestory Cup played on this patch. (And let's be honest, the korean terran players that were there definitely weren't on the same skill level as the koreans of the other two races) Now, if you're a more stubborn guy, and want changes made right now because the game is soooo imbalanced, I'ma just leave this image here ... And tell you, not without pleasure I have to admit, to "LET THE META SETTLE" like you've told us Protoss players to do for months and months after each nerf
Where did you get this? We need to have this saved on favorites to post on every terran whine thread.
|
Protoss is fun again to play, thank god! No more MSC and old chrono back gives us options again... and if there needs to be some fixes, do it, but remain these mechanics please!
|
On November 15 2017 19:47 Zaros wrote: Guys if you are having trouble with skins tell blizzard what needs to change about the skin to fix your problem, they changed the baneling because people told them what was wrong and made it green again do the same for the immortal and overlord and they will change it rather than just blanket complain about skins being IMBA.
But the fundamental problem for some of us is that there are skins in this game. A simple check box stating ‘tournament mode’, which replaces any skins of my opponent with the standard models on my client when enabled, is that really asking too much?! Will this hurt skin sales that much?! I personally highly doubt that.
|
On November 15 2017 21:27 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 19:47 Zaros wrote: Guys if you are having trouble with skins tell blizzard what needs to change about the skin to fix your problem, they changed the baneling because people told them what was wrong and made it green again do the same for the immortal and overlord and they will change it rather than just blanket complain about skins being IMBA.
But the fundamental problem for some of us is that there are skins in this game. A simple check box stating ‘tournament mode’, which replaces any skins of my opponent with the standard models on my client when enabled, is that really asking too much?! Will this hurt skin sales that much?! I personally highly doubt that.
Well from what I've heard they are gonna start allowing skins in WCS so I doubt its gonna be called tournament mode, but im not against the button that disables them for you.
|
8716 Posts
On November 15 2017 13:44 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously. It comes out Nov 17. And from what I saw it's people complaining they can't play their favorite scifi character. It's a big difference from gaining an advantage in a competitive multiplayer game. Nerds can't pretend they're Darth Vader, who cares.
Also the game now seems to think everyone gets 25ms to Singapore server so we are all getting matched to Singapore and then the latency is horrible in actuality.
|
@Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway.
|
On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway.
Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them.
|
On November 15 2017 21:38 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 13:44 papaz wrote:On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously. It comes out Nov 17. And from what I saw it's people complaining they can't play their favorite scifi character. It's a big difference from gaining an advantage in a competitive multiplayer game. Nerds can't pretend they're Darth Vader, who cares.
The insane time it took to unlock Darth Vader/Luke was just the tip of the Iceberg, what you can do in BF2 is literally as if you could buy a lootbox in sc2 with a small chance of getting a buff to your stalkers. You stalkers will do 40% more damage than the stalkers of other players on the ladder, unless they had the luck to get the same buff out of lootboxes or spent hundreds of dollars to craft that Stalker buff.
So until Blizzard does that, don't compare sc2 and BF2.
Btw, the warchest skins for roaches makes the difference between roaches with or without tunneling claws more clear then with the default skin. With the warchest skin they get spikes on their claws and the spikes on the back get really long, way easier to spot than with the default skin. So they already listened to the feedback and took tunneling claws into consideration when designing new skins. Only the first Roach skin should still be improved.
If there are more skins that make things harder to see for you, report that to Blizz and hopefully it will get fixed, just as the baneling.
|
8716 Posts
I don't get why I make a comparison, and you guys proceed to make MORE comparisons, with the conclusion that we should stop comparing them. The ONLY thing that matters for what I'm saying is that you can pay extra money for optional things that give you a competitive advantage. If you're just going to get into the details of the games until you find a difference, then yes that was inevitable, they are different games. You're not informing me of anything. The argument is about the principle of having the option to pay more for something that can provide an advantage in competitive play.
Btw, the warchest skins for roaches makes the difference between roaches with or without tunneling claws more clear then with the default skin. With the warchest skin they get spikes on their claws and the spikes on the back get really long, way easier to spot than with the default skin. So they already listened to the feedback and took tunneling claws into consideration when designing new skins. Only the first Roach skin should still be improved. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that I'm playing the game, only knowing the default skins, and then I see something else and I don't know what it is. If they've published a guide to study then that would at least be a start. Like "here are all the roaches you can see and how they look with and without claws" and same for all units and upgrades. I was in a game and I saw roaches and they looked more similar to default roaches with claws than default roaches without claws, so I thought they had claws, but they didn't have claws. If my opponent can pay so that I don't know what units he has even when I've scouted him, then that's upsetting to me, and not a position from which I think Blizzard should be criticizing casual games like BF2.
|
On November 15 2017 21:38 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 13:44 papaz wrote:On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously. It comes out Nov 17. And from what I saw it's people complaining they can't play their favorite scifi character. It's a big difference from gaining an advantage in a competitive multiplayer game. Nerds can't pretend they're Darth Vader, who cares. Also the game now seems to think everyone gets 25ms to Singapore server so we are all getting matched to Singapore and then the latency is horrible in actuality.
The Heroes all have different abilities and the cards in crates give new abilities/buffs so its nothing like the same.
|
8716 Posts
On November 15 2017 22:29 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:38 NonY wrote:On November 15 2017 13:44 papaz wrote:On November 15 2017 13:12 NonY wrote: also big joke blizzard poking fun at EA for pay to win when sc2 now has the same shit with these skins where you cant tell units apart and you cant see the visual indicators of certain research being done (tunneling claws, drop overlord, etc). literally paying for competitive advantage You havent played Battlefront 2 obviously. It comes out Nov 17. And from what I saw it's people complaining they can't play their favorite scifi character. It's a big difference from gaining an advantage in a competitive multiplayer game. Nerds can't pretend they're Darth Vader, who cares. Also the game now seems to think everyone gets 25ms to Singapore server so we are all getting matched to Singapore and then the latency is horrible in actuality. The Heroes all have different abilities and the cards in crates give new abilities/buffs so its nothing like the same. ?? BF2 is the same game that has the thing you're describing and also has special characters like Darth Vader locked behind an enormous amount of gameplay or behind real money -> in-game currency boxes. It's the same thing. It's all part of the same system of paying extra money after initially purchasing the game in order to have more things in the game. BF2 has it all. SC2 has skins. Are we all agreed on the facts now?
|
man as a protoss hater this patch is hard hard hard
|
On November 15 2017 22:29 NonY wrote:I don't get why I make a comparison, and you guys proceed to make MORE comparisons, with the conclusion that we should stop comparing them. The ONLY thing that matters for what I'm saying is that you can pay extra money for optional things that give you a competitive advantage. If you're just going to get into the details of the games until you find a difference, then yes that was inevitable, they are different games. You're not informing me of anything. The argument is about the principle of having the option to pay more for something that can provide an advantage in competitive play. Show nested quote +Btw, the warchest skins for roaches makes the difference between roaches with or without tunneling claws more clear then with the default skin. With the warchest skin they get spikes on their claws and the spikes on the back get really long, way easier to spot than with the default skin. So they already listened to the feedback and took tunneling claws into consideration when designing new skins. Only the first Roach skin should still be improved. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that I'm playing the game, only knowing the default skins, and then I see something else and I don't know what it is. If they've published a guide to study then that would at least be a start. Like "here are all the roaches you can see and how they look with and without claws" and same for all units and upgrades. I was in a game and I saw roaches and they looked more similar to default roaches with claws than default roaches without claws, so I thought they had claws. Well and that happens once or twice and that's it? Afterwards you know the skin and all is good.
I played a lot of games where I had no idea which hero was attacking me, because I didn't know the skin. Afterwards I learned that that hero has that new skin and that's it. Compared to hero skins in OW or mobas, the skins in sc2 are way less extreme and it never happened that I did not recognise a unit.
Skins are fine to sell exactly because they don't give a competitive advantage. Arguing that they do is ridiculous.
You can argue that they make things harder to see, but then that specific skin just has to be fixed.
I think what I wrote about the tunneling claw is relevant, because it shows that Blizzard is listening and the skin situation will only get better.
On November 15 2017 22:29 NonY wrote: If my opponent can pay so that I don't know what units he has even when I've scouted him, then that's upsetting to me, and not a position from which I think Blizzard should be criticizing casual games like BF2.
This is so exaggerated and will probably never happen to anybody ever. If it ever happens, it happens once.
|
On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them.
Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen?
|
On November 15 2017 22:42 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:29 NonY wrote:I don't get why I make a comparison, and you guys proceed to make MORE comparisons, with the conclusion that we should stop comparing them. The ONLY thing that matters for what I'm saying is that you can pay extra money for optional things that give you a competitive advantage. If you're just going to get into the details of the games until you find a difference, then yes that was inevitable, they are different games. You're not informing me of anything. The argument is about the principle of having the option to pay more for something that can provide an advantage in competitive play. Btw, the warchest skins for roaches makes the difference between roaches with or without tunneling claws more clear then with the default skin. With the warchest skin they get spikes on their claws and the spikes on the back get really long, way easier to spot than with the default skin. So they already listened to the feedback and took tunneling claws into consideration when designing new skins. Only the first Roach skin should still be improved. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that I'm playing the game, only knowing the default skins, and then I see something else and I don't know what it is. If they've published a guide to study then that would at least be a start. Like "here are all the roaches you can see and how they look with and without claws" and same for all units and upgrades. I was in a game and I saw roaches and they looked more similar to default roaches with claws than default roaches without claws, so I thought they had claws. Well and that happens once or twice and that's it? Afterwards you know the skin and all is good. I played a lot of games where I had no idea which hero was attacking me, because I didn't know the skin. Afterwards I learned that that hero has that new skin and that's it. Compared to hero skins in OW or mobas, the skins in sc2 are way less extreme and it never happened that I did not recognise a unit. Skins are fine to sell exactly because they don't give a competitive advantage. Arguing that they do is ridiculous. You can argue that they make things harder to see, but then that specific skin just has to be fixed. I think what I wrote about the tunneling claw is relevant, because it shows that Blizzard is listening and the skin situation will only get better. Hmm, I can see where Nony is coming from; High level players often play with lower settings, not for performance but for making sure they can see everything as clear as possible. Something like these skins goes directly against that.
I for one would like to have the option to disable skins because I want full control of what my game looks like as well.
|
On November 15 2017 22:43 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen?
Agreed 100%. I hate skins. It makes the game so much more confusing when units suddenly are much bigger, have more wings etc. Just allow me to turn them off for myself. No one is ever gonna know if I have them turned on or off.
|
On November 15 2017 22:49 FanaticCZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:43 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen? Agreed 100%. I hate skins. It makes the game so much more confusing when units suddenly are much bigger, have more wings etc. Just allow me to turn them off for myself. No one is ever gonna know if I have them turned on or off.
Yeah, right? This game isn’t about eye candy or cosmetics, it’s a competitive multiplayer game, having such an option (for ranked 1v1 at least) just gives people control over how they want to play the game.
|
On November 15 2017 22:49 FanaticCZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:43 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen? Agreed 100%. I hate skins. It makes the game so much more confusing when units suddenly are much bigger, have more wings etc. Just allow me to turn them off for myself. No one is ever gonna know if I have them turned on or off.
I am with you guys, give us the option to turn off the skins. New players and skins lover wouldn't care about it anyway so your sales are not in risk
|
On November 15 2017 22:43 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen? You missed his point, what he's saying is that when you see your opponents skins you might want to have them yourself.
€: Though obviously I would like being able to disable skins aswell.
|
On November 15 2017 23:09 raff100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:49 FanaticCZ wrote:On November 15 2017 22:43 Creager wrote:On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. Simply don’t let your opponent know you don’t see any skins, how are they gonna find out if it’s not shown during the loading screen? Agreed 100%. I hate skins. It makes the game so much more confusing when units suddenly are much bigger, have more wings etc. Just allow me to turn them off for myself. No one is ever gonna know if I have them turned on or off. I am with you guys, give us the option to turn off the skins. New players and skins lover wouldn't care about it anyway so your sales are not in risk [citation needed]
|
On November 15 2017 22:11 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Simple psychology you don't want something if you don't see it, so if it doesn't show you your enemies skins you're not as likely to buy them. You still see them if you don't enable the option to not show them. If you dislike skins that much that you enable that option you probably wouldn't buy them anyway.
|
skin sales are definitely at risk if you allow people to turn them off which is why no games add that feature.
also, i wonder how much of an effect F2P will have have on sc2. personally, i got the impression that everyone who wanted to try sc2 has already tried it or bought it.. in my circle of friends, people would just gift sc2 if it was a matter of money. i never got that impression that the entry fee was a big blocker for korean pc bang users either
|
Strongly agreed with needing the option to disable skins.
And it isn't just that once you have seen something once, you remember it and can react. That's NOT how trained reactions, like those you rely on to play an RTS at reasonable speed, work.
I get very used to seeing roaches-with-claws after many games and build up a whole set of reactions and associations to it that gets triggered quickly. It's not just "okay those can tunnel", there's the practice of repeatedly seeing and understanding exactly what this image means and how to respond. The same goes for judging unit counts. I see a flock of not completely stacked mutas vs my flock and immediately make a call as to whether I have enough to win the fight. Now that dynamic gets broken because mutas with more wingey-spiky protrusions look slightly bigger. That kind of reaction you don't fix or retrain just by seeing the unit once and saying "aah, that is a muta".
|
On November 15 2017 23:54 Endymion wrote: skin sales are definitely at risk if you allow people to turn them off which is why no games add that feature.
also, i wonder how much of an effect F2P will have have on sc2. personally, i got the impression that everyone who wanted to try sc2 has already tried it or bought it.. in my circle of friends, people would just gift sc2 if it was a matter of money. i never got that impression that the entry fee was a big blocker for korean pc bang users either
If you really wanted to play the game sure, but if you wanted to try the core game play (the 1v1 ladder) you couldn't unless you bought it. Which now means everyone can try it and can stick to it if they think it is fun to play 1v1.
|
Have alerts always been clickable?
|
On November 15 2017 23:54 Endymion wrote: skin sales are definitely at risk if you allow people to turn them off which is why no games add that feature.
also, i wonder how much of an effect F2P will have have on sc2. personally, i got the impression that everyone who wanted to try sc2 has already tried it or bought it.. in my circle of friends, people would just gift sc2 if it was a matter of money. i never got that impression that the entry fee was a big blocker for korean pc bang users either
I agree that Blizz probably won't add the feature to disable skins for the reason you mentioned but I doubt that in reality it would make a significant difference in skin sales for this game.
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On November 16 2017 00:03 JWD[9] wrote: Have alerts always been clickable?
There might be a setting to turn that off
|
8716 Posts
If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins?
|
On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? I have a feeling that would upset a lot of people haha
Do it Blizz pls :p
|
On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins?
Because then people would complain that others couldn't see their skins.
Skins are a prestige item. (Now I know many don't care about it, me included but there are many people influenced by things like that) And because they are a prestige item, people who use them want to show that to other people which wouldn't work if you could select an option/purchase something so that you couldn't see skins. Which would make the people who buy skins angry. And I think there are way more people who use skins and want to show them to other people than there are people who don't want to see skins (Even if it seems different here).
|
I heard they killed the Wol and Hots ladders for this?
|
On November 16 2017 00:53 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? Because then people would complain that others couldn't see their skins. Skins are a prestige item. (Now I know many don't care about it, me included but there are many people influenced by things like that) And because they are a prestige item, people who use them want to show that to other people which wouldn't work if you could select an option/purchase something so that you couldn't see skins. Which would make the people who buy skins angry. And I think there are way more people who use skins and want to show them to other people than there are people who don't want to see skins (Even if it seems different here). Again, this is probably why blizzard won't add the option to block skins but I doubt adding it would make a significant difference in sales for this game. In absence of any research done to the subject I can only go by the people I know (who bought the skins) and I'm pretty sure none of them would care if such an option was added. The thing is just that Bizzard probably won't take the risk, however small it is.
|
8716 Posts
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 00:53 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? Because then people would complain that others couldn't see their skins. Skins are a prestige item. (Now I know many don't care about it, me included but there are many people influenced by things like that) And because they are a prestige item, people who use them want to show that to other people which wouldn't work if you could select an option/purchase something so that you couldn't see skins. Which would make the people who buy skins angry. And I think there are way more people who use skins and want to show them to other people than there are people who don't want to see skins (Even if it seems different here). But people are currently complaining that they CAN see the skins. You've got people angry either way except right now, the people with skins have all the power. I get that they paid for it so they deserve it. So I'm suggesting people without skins can pay to be on equal footing. If some people want to show their skins and other people don't want to see them, there is no way to satisfy everyone. So the idea is to at least make it fair. They buy skins and can set the skins for their own units and for my units. They experience the game how they want. I buy the option to control my opponents' skins for my eyes only. I experience the game how I want. I assume that they currently don't have the ability to let different players see different skins in the same game, so the money I'd be paying would be going toward that development.
|
On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway.
Because part of the F2P model is the ability to peacock all your cool shit. If a good chunk of the community cant see it, whales are not inclined to spend. There's a reason why no other major game offers such an option.
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On November 16 2017 01:40 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Because part of the F2P model is the ability to peacock all your cool shit. If a good chunk of the community cant see it, whales are not inclined to spend. There's a reason why no other major game offers such an option.
If the game needed to compromise on competition to stay alive then it'd hardly be the starcraft that everyone around here loves any more.
|
On November 16 2017 01:45 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:40 lestye wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Because part of the F2P model is the ability to peacock all your cool shit. If a good chunk of the community cant see it, whales are not inclined to spend. There's a reason why no other major game offers such an option. If the game needed to compromise on competition to stay alive then it'd hardly be the starcraft that everyone around here loves any more.
It's not compromising based on the competition, I'm pointing at the competition to show a common theme, I guarantee all of them know disabling skins completely betrays the point of the business model. I'm confident they're not going to change it.
|
On November 16 2017 01:45 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:40 lestye wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Because part of the F2P model is the ability to peacock all your cool shit. If a good chunk of the community cant see it, whales are not inclined to spend. There's a reason why no other major game offers such an option. If the game needed to compromise on competition to stay alive then it'd hardly be the starcraft that everyone around here loves any more. Yes the entire competitiveness of StarCraft is dependent on if the banelings have spikes or not. Skins aren't going away, they're a part of every modern game. If a skin is too much of an issue then complain and it will get changed, we've seen this already.
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On November 16 2017 01:48 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:45 Cyro wrote:On November 16 2017 01:40 lestye wrote:On November 15 2017 22:06 Ysellian wrote: @Nony: No that was just the final nail in the coffin. Battlefront 2 also has damage and ability buffs in crates.
Anyway Blizzard should allow you to disable skins in SC2, don't see much reason why they wouldn't. I think the announcer stuff is probably where Blizz earns the most anyway. Because part of the F2P model is the ability to peacock all your cool shit. If a good chunk of the community cant see it, whales are not inclined to spend. There's a reason why no other major game offers such an option. If the game needed to compromise on competition to stay alive then it'd hardly be the starcraft that everyone around here loves any more. It's not compromising based on the competition, I'm pointing at the competition to show a common theme, I guarantee all of them know disabling skins completely betrays the point of the business model. I'm confident they're not going to change it.
Straying from competitive values is compromising competition
|
On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins).
|
Right now there are two big balance problems Blizz need to fix asap.
1) winfestors: befor 4.0, PvZ Skytoss was super strong. Mass Oracle was a common build and the transition into the golden armada was relatively easy. once Protoss reached the late game Zerg was forced to play this dumb mass spore/Queen/infestor/corruptor/viper style wich wasn't a lot of fun to play and watch but Skytoss was beatable.
with the patch they changed the infestor, fungal no longer hits air and to compensate that they changed the inf. terran and gave him this ridiculous AAattack but then they reverted fungal to hit air again, now it's better vs air than befor because of the greater radius. I don't know why they didn't revert the inf. terran too.
at the same time they nerfed Skytoss: - Interceptor cost 50% more - many minor nerfs to the oracle to prevent massing them - mothership no longer have mass recall(that's actually huge, befor 4.0 protoss simply jumped out of a bad fight and lost no units, with the new recall they will always lose some units)
my suggestion is to revert the infestor to 3.19 or whatever the Blizzcon version was. I think the Skytoss nerfs are enough to balance ZvP lategame + the new infestor is also problematic in TvZ so it's easier to balance this matchup too.
2) Chrono Boost: It's nice for Protoss to have the cool energy based Chrono Boost back but the new one is way, way too good because of the insane stackability of this spell.
Right now, if the terran get's unlucky and didn't scoute the proxy, it's 50/50 instant GG because if he builds blinde turrets and it's robo he's dead, if he didn't build turrets and it's stargate he's also dead because he will never have enough marines to defend, even if T scoute the proxy it's super hard to def and he will be almost certainly behind because he has to commit so much into defens.
I know it's hard to predict how changes will turn out in the live game but if I had that idea, the first thing i would check is how fast can protoss get certain units out, especialy in the first 3-4min because not a lot of player interaction happens there.
I don't know exactly what a good change would be, maybe change Chrono Boost to HotS Chrono Boost or make the Chrono Boost 50% longer but also 50% more energy so you can only boost the proxy oracle once. Perhaps both?
They need to fix this two problems befor we can talk reasonable about other "minor" balance issues.
I hope they can do this befor the WESG qualifier because right now, SC2 is more e-WWE than e-sport.
thank you for reading, hope my english was not too bad
|
Oh and sorry that I disrupted your conversation about skins.^^
|
Is it true that fungal can no longer hit air? I thought it still does. The change notes did not mention about not about to hit air units.
I those skins are getting more and more silly. I understand they need different skins to monetize the game. But they are running out of ideas. What other skins do you want which you don't already have? The problem is that they should at least make an option for users to disable customized skins. Some of the problems is that it is hard to see the units. Stalkers and immortals have customized skins which are similar to one another.
|
On November 16 2017 02:32 MrWayne wrote: but then they changed fungal again, now it's better vs air than befor because of the greater radius. I don't know why they didn't revert the inf. terran too.
currently fungal hit air but back when they first come up with the new changes, they removed air fungle and justified the inf. terran buff with it.
|
Widow mine +shield aoe is fine! they said. Liberator 2 shooting stalkers at 4 minutes is fine! they said.
Chrono is NOT ok, infestors are NOT ok, shield battery is NOT ok they said.
classic Terrans want to keep their +55% winrates. I'm liking this patch.
Also about skins, if Blizzard wants to keep them they can just edit them to keep them from looking to similar to one another.
The guy in this thread who said skins don't belong in a competitive game, lol. Every other esport allows them, in tournaments even. Many of those games require crazy fast reactions also. In fact I bet skins help increase the popularity of games, but I don't have the stats to back that.
|
Downloaded the patch, played a game and I can already say it's still not fun. Back to SC: Remastered and CS: GO it is.
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop.
|
On November 16 2017 02:32 MrWayne wrote:
Right now, if the terran get's unlucky and didn't scoute the proxy, it's 50/50 instant GG because if he builds blinde turrets and it's robo he's dead, if he didn't build turrets and it's stargate he's also dead because he will never have enough marines to defend, even if T scoute the proxy it's super hard to def and he will be almost certainly behind because he has to commit so much into defens.
I'm still unsure in which ways new chrono buff/nerfs things.
I feel like it might slow down early game..
Must says so far as a toss i don't like this patch so much..
I've got into almost only zerg and i miss the MC really much against them, i surely must learn some better sim city with battery & photon, but so far it forces photon so sometimes forge earlier. But for now i feel doomed to turtle more against them, and the things i hate about this match-up feels even more painful even more, since with this long-ass recall, i can't risk some quick agression.
Y'all wanted MSC dead but while i like shield battery concept, i feel like removal of MSC did'nt truely enhance any Protoss match-ups
|
On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. the word abusive might be over the top Nony, people buy skin for the same reason they buy a good looking car, it's stupid but it's really just to show off
|
There's probably no point discussing skins anymore. SC2 is free. Blizzard want to make money. You can guess what they're going to sell (skins is one of them).
|
Wow I just played the new patch- what an absolute heap of trash. The "balance" has just made the game as un-fun as possible for protoss, yet again.
If the "problem" with the Mothership Core was that it forced a limited set of options on players, the new build is far far worse in that it forces you to either sit next to a shield battery or be completely useless. It encourages a turtley gameplay style and removes any of the fun from playing that race.
Blizzard may have found a way to go Free to Play and lose players at the same time. What a massively wasted opportunity.
|
On November 16 2017 02:55 youngjiddle wrote: Widow mine +shield aoe is fine! they said. Liberator 2 shooting stalkers at 4 minutes is fine! they said.
Chrono is NOT ok, infestors are NOT ok, shield battery is NOT ok they said.
classic Terrans want to keep their +55% winrates. I'm liking this patch.
I'm liking this patch too!
I like the energy based Chrono Boost, the Shield Battery, the new Raven, the idea of better gateway units. I like even the new Disruptor everyone shits on.
Did you actually read my post? I said nothing about the Shield battery or Widow mine. I mentioned only the Chrono Boost and the Infestor and it's not like i'm the only one who mentioned these two problems. Did you watch HSC or a Prostream the last view days?
this is PiG, Special and some other very good Players talking about the Chrono Boost + Show Spoiler +
Or watch last Olimoleague finals game 5 between Zest and TY.
|
On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. If skins served an inherit advantage, all progamers would use the same.
|
On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop.
No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is.
|
On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage
|
On November 16 2017 03:37 sc-darkness wrote: There's probably no point discussing skins anymore. SC2 is free. Blizzard want to make money. You can guess what they're going to sell (skins is one of them). If Blizzard just wants to make money they'd let SC2 fully prized and lock most of the units behind additional paywalls... I still have some faith that they value the player experience above ripping the maximum amount of cash from their players.
|
On November 16 2017 00:53 Corvuuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? Because then people would complain that others couldn't see their skins. Skins are a prestige item. (Now I know many don't care about it, me included but there are many people influenced by things like that) And because they are a prestige item, people who use them want to show that to other people which wouldn't work if you could select an option/purchase something so that you couldn't see skins. Which would make the people who buy skins angry. And I think there are way more people who use skins and want to show them to other people than there are people who don't want to see skins (Even if it seems different here). They want to show of that they have enough money to afford that shiny skin. I want to show of that I'm so rich that I'm able to turn their skins of. What's the difference? They should just give an alert to notify them that their opponent can't see their skin so I can really feel good about it.
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client.
|
On November 16 2017 04:29 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 00:53 Corvuuss wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? Because then people would complain that others couldn't see their skins. Skins are a prestige item. (Now I know many don't care about it, me included but there are many people influenced by things like that) And because they are a prestige item, people who use them want to show that to other people which wouldn't work if you could select an option/purchase something so that you couldn't see skins. Which would make the people who buy skins angry. And I think there are way more people who use skins and want to show them to other people than there are people who don't want to see skins (Even if it seems different here). They want to show of that they have enough money to afford that shiny skin. I want to show of that I'm so rich that I'm able to turn their skins of. What's the difference? They should just give an alert to notify them that their opponent can't see their skin so I can really feel good about it. add it to announcer packs so you can let your opponent know in the voice of your favorite caster
|
On November 16 2017 04:16 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage this is so temporary though, once you get used to it there is no competitive advantage whatsoever, and atm it's BARELY an advantage, it's a bit like saying oh you have a competitive advantage over me because you played more games, you shouldn't be allowed to play more games
|
On November 16 2017 04:41 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 04:16 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage this is so temporary though, once you get used to it there is no competitive advantage whatsoever, and atm it's BARELY an advantage, it's a bit like saying oh you have a competitive advantage over me because you played more games, you shouldn't be allowed to play more games
i haven't played sc2 in a long time, but i remember that ludicrous zergling skin that was added where you couldn't count speedlings quickly... also, if it was mixed with banelings, the wings would block banelings from sight in large numbers making it even more difficult to count them quickly.. it made ZvZ and TvZ a nightmare and it felt really frustrating saying "damn, i REALLY wish i could just turn this guy's skins off so that i could count his units"
|
counting zerglings and banelings? people do that in TvZ? seems doable in ZvZ early game when numbers are low but otherwise...?
|
On November 16 2017 04:16 Endymion wrote:i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage
It's not like skins are restricted in any way, or have I missed something? If they offer an advantage, everyone is free to use them. Do you want to ban mechanical keyboards or fast cpus because they offer an advantage, too?
And btw, I'd appreciate skins that made a real difference, like ghosts being (nearly) undistinguishable from marines but marauders thor-sized, for example. My next step would then be to let the skins actually modify the units, like marines with miniguns that have doubled rate of fire but tanks with reduced range. Give just five of these to each race and you've got a ton of new exciting matchups.
|
On November 16 2017 04:51 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 04:16 Endymion wrote:i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage It's not like skins are restricted in any way, or have I missed something? If they offer an advantage, everyone is free to use them. Do you want to ban mechanical keyboards or fast cpus because they offer an advantage, too? And btw, I'd appreciate skins that made a real difference, like ghosts being (nearly) undistinguishable from marines but marauders thor-sized, for example. My next step would then be to let the skins actually modify the units, like marines with miniguns that have doubled rate of fire but tanks with reduced range. Give just five of these to each race and you've got a ton of new exciting matchups. This is a great idea, Blizzard get on it!
|
On November 16 2017 04:51 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 04:16 Endymion wrote:i'm not disagreeing with you at all, i completely agree that skins are stupid in sc2 because they offer a competitive advantage It's not like skins are restricted in any way, or have I missed something? If they offer an advantage, everyone is free to use them. Do you want to ban mechanical keyboards or fast cpus because they offer an advantage, too? And btw, I'd appreciate skins that made a real difference, like ghosts being (nearly) undistinguishable from marines but marauders thor-sized, for example. My next step would then be to let the skins actually modify the units, like marines with miniguns that have doubled rate of fire but tanks with reduced range. Give just five of these to each race and you've got a ton of new exciting matchups. I think the argument here is that people are saying skins are a very very slight "pay 2 win" but once you figure the skins out it's not going to be a problem so yeah... I don't think it's a big deal at all
and for your 2nd paragraph that obviously can't work in a competitive environment haha, could be fun though for casual play
|
On November 16 2017 04:50 ROOTFayth wrote: counting zerglings and banelings? people do that in TvZ? seems doable in ZvZ early game when numbers are low but otherwise...? counting and also just seeing where the banelings are in the blob (for splitting marines optimally)
|
I have major, major complaints with the balance.
As zerg: The stalker weapon is now way too powerful. Please turn the buff into an upgrade. Also, I don't like having to build a separate lurker den. As terran: The +56% area fungal buff is ridicuous. It turns the most unskilled fungal into an excellent one. Also, thanks to raven and mine redesign, I now have zero AOE attackers except tank. As protoss: Liberator vision nerf didn't go far enough. Also, I want nexus overcharge back.
|
Oh, and since high templar got a baseline auto-attack to save on micro, could medivac please get a drop while flying hotkey to save on micro?
|
On November 16 2017 04:56 ROOTFayth wrote:and for your 2nd paragraph that obviously can't work in a competitive environment haha, could be fun though for casual play
I think it can work in tournaments, too, if your "skin" selection is known to the opponent before the game. Otherwise it might well increase the chance for build order wins (which viewers seem to dislike).
|
On November 16 2017 05:22 KR_4EVR wrote: Oh, and since high templar got a baseline auto-attack to save on micro, could medivac please get a drop while flying hotkey to save on micro?
While we're at it, can queens get semi-auto-inject? Not that all queens always inject on their own, but if you manually inject a queen at a hatch once, it will inject again once the timer is elapsed unless told something else (i.e. moved away, attacked something etc.)
|
Although I like the general direction of the changes the game is not really playable in its current state.
I think the following changes are needed as soon as possible. 1) Add 20 seconds to the build time of Stargates 2) Add 30 seconds to the blink stalker research time. 3) Reduce the radius of fungal growth. 4) Make shield batteries either heal slower or cost more resources.
|
On November 16 2017 06:40 MockHamill wrote: Although I like the general direction of the changes the game is not really playable in its current state.
I think the following changes are needed as soon as possible. 1) Add 20 seconds to the build time of Stargates 2) Add 30 seconds to the blink stalker research time. 3) Reduce the radius of fungal growth. 4) Make shield batteries either heal slower or cost more resources. 30 seconds? Lmfao.
5) Buff mech, amirite?
|
The Mothership Core was the unit that made me start to not like SC2. It felt too gimmicky and like an all-or-nothing unit. Them basically admitting that it was a bandaid fix of a unit and instead now trying to make it so Protoss can actually defend stuff earlier in the game makes me quite excited.
Seeing it gone and proper chronoboost back makes me legitimately want to play the game again for the first time since the launch of LOTV. That stuff combined with the colossus buff makes it feel like they might be going a bit toward a more solid, almost Wings of Liberty style for Protoss rather than a bunch of units with a bunch of spells like Protoss has felt like in LOTV.
I probably will at least play some unranked tonight, if not get into ranked again. I've been thinking about playing SC2 again and jumping in at this patch seems like a good time to do so.
|
On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client.
That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players.
They are never going to let you turn skins off.
|
On November 16 2017 06:40 MockHamill wrote: Although I like the general direction of the changes the game is not really playable in its current state.
I think the following changes are needed as soon as possible. 1) Add 20 seconds to the build time of Stargates 2) Add 30 seconds to the blink stalker research time. 3) Reduce the radius of fungal growth. 4) Make shield batteries either heal slower or cost more resources. ....you have a very strange definition of unplayable
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen.
|
On November 16 2017 06:40 MockHamill wrote: Although I like the general direction of the changes the game is not really playable in its current state.
I think the following changes are needed as soon as possible. 1) Add 20 seconds to the build time of Stargates 2) Add 30 seconds to the blink stalker research time. 3) Reduce the radius of fungal growth. 4) Make shield batteries either heal slower or cost more resources. Basically, you want Protoss to be unplayable.
|
On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option.
|
Got some crashes too. Well, big patches usually come with issues.
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o
edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them.
|
On November 16 2017 02:32 MrWayne wrote:
2) Chrono Boost: It's nice for Protoss to have the cool energy based Chrono Boost back but the new one is way, way too good because of the insane stackability of this spell.
Right now, if the terran get's unlucky and didn't scoute the proxy, it's 50/50 instant GG because if he builds blinde turrets and it's robo he's dead, if he didn't build turrets and it's stargate he's also dead because he will never have enough marines to defend, even if T scoute the proxy it's super hard to def and he will be almost certainly behind because he has to commit so much into defens.
I know it's hard to predict how changes will turn out in the live game but if I had that idea, the first thing i would check is how fast can protoss get certain units out, especialy in the first 3-4min because not a lot of player interaction happens there.
I don't know exactly what a good change would be, maybe change Chrono Boost to HotS Chrono Boost or make the Chrono Boost 50% longer but also 50% more energy so you can only boost the proxy oracle once. Perhaps both?
They need to fix this two problems befor we can talk reasonable about other "minor" balance issues.
I hope they can do this befor the WESG qualifier because right now, SC2 is more e-WWE than e-sport.
thank you for reading, hope my english was not too bad
Disclaimer: I haven't proxied anything in this patch yet. I played HOTS before.
2.1)How did the Terran's defend proxies in HOTS/WoL (polar night blink era) ? Does no one scv scouts anymore? 2.2)I believe HOTS chrono is stronger than this version but weaker than the old LotV one although I would be nice for Sholip to do one again. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/510475-the-myth-of-the-chrono-boost-buff-in-lotv
The "current" one costs 50 energy and causes the target structure to operate 100% faster for 10 seconds. Nexus starting energy is increased to 50. The current one is more lethal due to 10 seconds duration but less "storable" due to 50 energy requirement. and for buildings that continuously builds it shaves off less seconds compared to hots.
For example, you have a building that continuously builds. The HOTS chronoboost will shave 33% of the time it was applied or 10 sec build time saving for roughly every 32 seconds needed for the 25 energy. The new one takes 64 seconds to recharge and only shaves off 10sec build time from building time 20 seconds or larger. So in a whole minute the old one would shave at least 20 second build time where as the new one would only shave off 10 second build time. Economy wise since the HotS is only just about superior to the LotV old chrono if everything hits and not wasted on double cast, the new one is only going to be worse since each misuse is a 64 second recharge.
In a way it is discouraging "macro" play.
edit: word errors
|
On November 16 2017 09:35 Odowan Paleolithic wrote:Disclaimer: I haven't proxied anything in this patch yet. I played HOTS before. 2.1)How did the Terran's defend proxies in HOTS/WoL (polar night blink era) ? Does no one scv scouts anymore? 2.2)I believe HOTS chrono is stronger than this version but weaker than the old LotV one although I would be nice for Sholip to do one again. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/510475-the-myth-of-the-chrono-boost-buff-in-lotv The "current" one costs 50 energy and causes the target structure to operate 100% faster for 10 seconds. Nexus starting energy is increased to 50. The current one is more lethal due to 10 seconds duration but less "storable" due to 50 energy requirement. and for buildings that continuously builds it shaves off less seconds compared to hots. For example, you have a building that continuously builds. The HOTS chronoboost will shave 33% of the time it was applied or 10 sec build time saving for roughly every 32 seconds needed for the 25 energy. The new one takes 64 seconds to recharge and only shaves off 10sec build time from building time 20 seconds or larger. So in a whole minute the old one would shave at least 20 second build time where as the new one would only shave off 10 second build time. Economy wise since the HotS is only just about superior to the LotV old chrono if everything hits and not wasted on double cast, the new one is only going to be worse since each misuse is a 64 second recharge. In a way it is discouraging "macro" play. edit: word errors
the fastest Ocracle build right know is: 12sup Pylon>Gateway>cybercore>proxy Stargate
with the old patch, you could chrono boost the Stargate and it will work 15% faster all the time. that means the Oracle build time would be 30,3sec In the new patch, you saved 100 energy on your Nexus with this build so you can double chrono boost the Stargate. with the new Chrono Boost your buildings work 100% faster for 10sec, double chrono boost means 100% faster for 20sec, so the build time of the Oracle is only 18sec!
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NW8VfHG7NE in that video Special/Major is showing some replays to PiG. He didn't find a build with whom he has 5 marines or a widow mine befor the Oracle arrives, he needs to go E-bay to be safe and well, going E-bay and turret befor 3min is realy bad for terran.
+ Show Spoiler + that's an interview from WardiTV with Harstem,Lambo and Optimus about the Balancepatch
|
observer with surveillance mode? really? what's next? liberator with emancipator mode?
bad player: i played poorly by frantically hitting F2 and rallying observers away from their perched positions Blizzard: no problem!
|
|
Kinda off topic but I wonder if this will mean more activity on wol ladder. Sitting in 18 minute queues at 5 am for a 4v4 is not fun and partially made it unplayable for me. I hope this will help at least.
|
On November 16 2017 09:24 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them.
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
|
What do you guys think of Battle of the Boardwalk? So far I've had a couple great TvT games on it
|
On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 09:24 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them. I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option. In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off. And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins. How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me. Your argument is ridicolous and makes no sense. That you're still arguing this is completely beyond me. You won't know what your opponent sees. I can select different graphic options so I view the game different anyway. How does it matter at all what your opponent sees, how does it affect your gaming experience? If your opponent enables the option to not show skins why do you want to force him to see something he doesn't want to see? To be a dick?
|
In games like Quake or UT, there was always the option of turning opponents skins to either a specific skin or a bright colored version of their skin so that the readability is top notch. Good players would also usually play on very low graphic settings not so they would get more FPS, but so they would get maximum read with no small details getting in the way of viewing everything clear instantly all the time.
It's the dev's job to either give the players these options, or only make skins that will be perfectly or equally comfortable to read the gameplay, or both. That is if they care about the competitive players. Unless you just want it to be part of the game that you can gain an extra edge by camouflaging your units by switching to a bought skin, which is pretty dumb from a starcraft player point of view I think @@
|
While it's probably correct to assume Blizzard will not implement an option to not show skins client-side I think it's not wrong to discuss such matters, because there is no wrong or right in this, just the wish to please the largest amount of players possible.
The only thing that bothers me is the people trying to silence the discussion by saying there's no point to it - feedback like this CAN trigger an reaction if there are enough people constantly bringing this up for consideration. Could also help to have community figures like TB who actually have some impact lobby for it.
|
On November 16 2017 17:36 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:On November 16 2017 09:24 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote: [quote] because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them. I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option. In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off. And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins. How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me. Your argument is ridicolous and makes no sense. That you're still arguing this is completely beyond me. You won't know what your opponent sees. I can select different graphic options so I view the game different anyway. How does it matter at all what your opponent sees, how does it affect your gaming experience? If your opponent enables the option to not show skins why do you want to force him to see something he doesn't want to see? To be a dick?
Well said
|
On November 16 2017 15:59 Jan1997 wrote: Kinda off topic but I wonder if this will mean more activity on wol ladder. Sitting in 18 minute queues at 5 am for a 4v4 is not fun and partially made it unplayable for me. I hope this will help at least. It's all just sc2 now. WoL, HotS, LotV are the campaigns. The multiplayer only has a single ladder now and it's just called sc2. They rebranded the game and retired the WoL and HotS ladder when sc2 went f2p.
So your queue times will definitely be shorter, since everybody is playing the same version now, but you won't be able to play WoL on the ladder.
|
On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote: In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
Well, plain false. I loose a significant % of my games vs skin-abusive players because of the skins. Some skins make some units really more hard to tell apart for me, i often even don't see banes or Templars because of it (and yes, you loose games when u don't see theses units coming at your army). Even without skins, since LoTV and adepts i have more difficulties with templars instant detection, because these too are too visually similar.
I my have not the best vision or whatever, but a large proportion of decent SC2 players i know also complains about skins. (when you visually trained for years your brain to identify certain visual patterns, even changing the skin to legit one causes issues and a drop in performance for some time )
This is very frustrating. I welcome the f2p, but having paid 3 times the game, i only demand the legacy multiplayer experience, without allowing players to legally cheat by paying, is this that hard to understand ? If they let people deactivate opponent's skin on your side, only a small % of players will do so.
|
On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
You're incredibly naive.
Hopefully blizzard just takes the initiative in just adding a client side toggle to disable skins. The alternative solution will be like what most people do in league, just patch and replace the files for the skins.
Both sides win no matter the course. The people that want to see their 'cool' units get to do so, those that don't want their playing experience negatively impacted don't have to.
|
The argument against the ' * Remove All Skins ' button is that it removes incentive to buy skins in the first place.
Hopefully we're at a point where there is enough skins and that people enjoy the skins that they use themselves, in which case not everyone would utilize this button. Personally I would use the button.
|
On November 16 2017 19:08 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 15:59 Jan1997 wrote: Kinda off topic but I wonder if this will mean more activity on wol ladder. Sitting in 18 minute queues at 5 am for a 4v4 is not fun and partially made it unplayable for me. I hope this will help at least. It's all just sc2 now. WoL, HotS, LotV are the campaigns. The multiplayer only has a single ladder now and it's just called sc2. They rebranded the game and retired the WoL and HotS ladder when sc2 went f2p. So your queue times will definitely be shorter, since everybody is playing the same version now, but you won't be able to play WoL on the ladder.
That's a little unfortunate. I assume that means wol maps are not included in the map pool
|
the guy who mentioned quake and UT hit the nail on the head.. it's not an obscure feature, its omission is a conscious design decision just like it is in dota and league. it's strange because even starcraft remastered has the option to disable skins and the skins in it are just for hatcheries/CCs/nexuses, but you also can't purchase those skins so there's no financial incentive to not include the option
|
Is there a unit tester online for custom units? I really need to study the new stalker.
|
On November 16 2017 19:44 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
You're incredibly naive. Hopefully blizzard just takes the initiative in just adding a client side toggle to disable skins. The alternative solution will be like what most people do in league, just patch and replace the files for the skins. Both sides win no matter the course. The people that want to see their 'cool' units get to do so, those that don't want their playing experience negatively impacted don't have to. 'What most people do in league' rofl
Who is naive?
|
On November 16 2017 19:49 ejozl wrote: The argument against the ' * Remove All Skins ' button is that it removes incentive to buy skins in the first place.
Hopefully we're at a point where there is enough skins and that people enjoy the skins that they use themselves, in which case not everyone would utilize this button. Personally I would use the button.
Well, that's how it should theoretically work in the first place. You buy something because YOU like it, not because you want to show off, provoke or are just doing it for appreciation of others.
The point of the button would be that you don't see any potential skins of your opponent on your client only, he/she still can see his/her skins.
I really wonder why people don't bitch about the alt-color feature (where you set your own color to green and your opponents' to red), because technically this is very similar - why pick a favorite color when my opponent can alter it on his machine and he cannot see anymore that I like purple?
Of course noone is complaining about this, but now that microtransactions are a thing people could feel butthurt because they've spent money on something they potentially cannot rub into other people's faces?
|
Lets talk about the uselessness of the new Raven, in fact I think this version of the Raven is even worse than in WOL.
Lets examine each spell:
1. Repair drone: Not very useful since SCVs can already repair mech units and unlike SCVs they are static. Also 12 hps is pitiful compared to the high average hitpoints that mech units have. If the enemy has some semblence of micro, he will focus fire mech units, and completely negative any use of the repair drone in battle.
2. Interference Matrix: Interesting idea in concept, but its statics are just completely garbage. 6 seconds is too short consider it is single target and only 8 range. The counter to this spell could not any simpler: retreat, wait for 6 seconds, and move back in. Also, enemy casters can shutdown this spell very easily with range 12.5 fungals, range 9 feedbacks, range 11.5 EMP, and range 9 abducts. For comparison, lockdown, a similar spell in broodwar, lasted 10 times longer, yet was barely used in pro games.
3. Anti-armor missile: The splash damage done is pathetic for a 125 energy spell. It is literally 75% of the splash damage of a widow mine shot without the additional single target damage. Let that sink in for a moment. Except for un-upgraded banelings, there isnt a single unit in the game that it can kill. How about the anti-armor ability? It only synergizes well with only one other Terran unit, the marine and is only useful lategame since that is when units usually have at least 3 base armor. Unforunately, mass marines are simply not viable in lategame and get destroyed by the incredible amount of splash damage that is avaliable to 3 races. Marines will get destroyed so fast, they wont have time to take advantage of this spell. The final nail in the coffin is that simple micro like splitting your units or just running away will tremendously reduce its effectiveness.
|
8716 Posts
On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 09:24 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote:On November 16 2017 00:14 NonY wrote: If it's a matter of money, then why isn't there an option to pay to force default skins? because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them. I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option. In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off. And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins. How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me. I don't think I've failed to understand anything. I'm posting ideas that some other people hadn't thought of and also facts that some people didn't know. I think I could argue both sides of this issue as well as anyone. But it's hard to know what I don't know so I can't say for sure.
Blizzard has controlled skins for SC2 tournaments and for OW tournaments and I know that they will continue to do so. Will they ever exercise some control over skins for the ladder competition that feeds into these tournaments? I don't know.
In the interest of fairness, they have different rules for matchmaking Masters and GM players. So there's already a precedent for having different rules for a part of the ladder when the integrity of the competition is at stake. There's a precedent for controlling skins in tournaments. It's not unreasonable to think that controlling skins in GM is the next step.
While Blizzard does want to get their microtransactions going, they're also extremely focused on esports. Their success is tied to how well their games do as esports. Part of that success is prioritizing competitive players' needs and maintaining the integrity of the competition. Making special allowances to take care of the top 1% of players absolutely makes sense for their business. It is vital that competitive players view Blizzard as a good steward of esports.
Edit: People thinking of collections as a necessary evil that doesn't care if it interferes with competition are thinking of it all wrong. The game as an esport is one of the main things to drive ongoing microtransactions. There will be synergy. Just because one set of unit skins was created that isn't good for competitive play doesn't mean that competitive integrity doesn't matter anymore. Competition will be protected and actually enhanced by these things. It's a simple mistake of inexperience that the artists designing the skins did not know what defining characteristics of units players had learned to use to recognize them at a glance. Esports and microtransaction synergy will march on. But maybe there should be an option for competitive players to disable these skins. It's not that big of a deal. People extrapolating my request to encompass far too many players and situations have the wrong idea. Handling situations like this properly is actually key to the continued success of both esports and microtransactions.
|
Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data?
|
Dear Mr. Blizzard,
from a strictly "fantasy" perspective i'd prefer to control the skins of both me and my opponent. Dominion-Special-Forces versus Standard-Skins in a Terran mirror match looks fucking awesome.
Blizzard has a reason to cede "total skin control" to the client for both the serious player and the casual player.
If the customization i'm requesting demands too many software engineering resources to create then a "default skins" checkbox could be placed in the OPTIONS menu some place. This at least helps the serious players with their valid concerns about skins.
i think the serious players' concerns should be dealt with first.. after that if they can pull off what i'm requesting... that'd be super cool.
|
On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? No there isn't. They need to fix this problem asap.
|
On November 16 2017 22:26 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:On November 16 2017 09:24 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:On November 16 2017 08:48 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 08:36 ClanWars wrote:On November 16 2017 04:37 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 04:14 Zaros wrote:On November 16 2017 03:21 NonY wrote:On November 16 2017 02:30 Endymion wrote: [quote] because blizzard would get crucified if it did something like that.. right now they're making money off of selling "more options" to people and they can just pretend/be negligent and not add the feature to disable skins... if they were to add it and charge for it people would lose their shit because it would be a tacit admission that balance is up for sale (instead of just being implied, like it is atm with skins). Then that's pretty clear that the people wanting skins in competitive play are just being abusive. At least we can all agree on that. If there's no reason to complain because it'll never change, then I'll stop. No people want skins because they look fucking cool not to gain some marginal advantage because the opponent might not make out what a unit is. I don't care what skins display on their client. I just want to be able to control my own game client. That is never, ever going to happen. You might wanna focus on a battle that you can win, like making sure that Blizzard does not release skins that are hard to see/actively confusing to players. They are never going to let you turn skins off. Blizzard has already required skins to be turned off for tournaments. So it already did happen. You're comparing tournament rules to something you want in the base game. Riot Games have had similar rules regarding certain skins for YEARS in the LCS. League doesn't have such an option. I specifically said competitive play :o edit: To clarify, there is a competition which starts at the ladder and leads into big live events. For live events, rules like no skins can be manually enforced. But for the ladder stage of the competition, such a rule cannot be manually enforced. So I'm saying I'd be willing to pay my share for the development of such a feature for the game client, just as people wanting to see skins have paid their share to have them implemented. I said that because people were claiming it was all about money. But the idea that Blizzard is so against disabling skins at all that they'd never ever do it is just plain false since they already do it. Whether or not such a thing gets put into the client is a matter of necessity. They don't need it for live events with smaller number of players, but they would need it if they wanted to enforce the rule for the ladder portion. So far, they've decided to just not disallow skins on the ladder. But I don't see why it's so crazy to think that they'd consider it. Especially when you've also got casual players who just dislike some of the skins and don't want to have to see them. I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option. In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off. And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins. How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me. I don't think I've failed to understand anything. I'm posting ideas that some other people hadn't thought of and also facts that some people didn't know. I think I could argue both sides of this issue as well as anyone. But it's hard to know what I don't know so I can't say for sure. Blizzard has controlled skins for SC2 tournaments and for OW tournaments and I know that they will continue to do so. Will they ever exercise some control over skins for the ladder competition that feeds into these tournaments? I don't know. In the interest of fairness, they have different rules for matchmaking Masters and GM players. So there's already a precedent for having different rules for a part of the ladder when the integrity of the competition is at stake. There's a precedent for controlling skins in tournaments. It's not unreasonable to think that controlling skins in GM is the next step. While Blizzard does want to get their microtransactions going, they're also extremely focused on esports. Their success is tied to how well their games do as esports. Part of that success is prioritizing competitive players' needs and maintaining the integrity of the competition. Making special allowances to take care of the top 1% of players absolutely makes sense for their business. It is vital that competitive players view Blizzard as a good steward of esports. Edit: People thinking of collections as a necessary evil that doesn't care if it interferes with competition are thinking of it all wrong. The game as an esport is one of the main things to drive ongoing microtransactions. There will be synergy. Just because one set of unit skins was created that isn't good for competitive play doesn't mean that competitive integrity doesn't matter anymore. Competition will be protected and actually enhanced by these things. It's a simple mistake of inexperience that the artists designing the skins did not know what defining characteristics of units players had learned to use to recognize them at a glance. Esports and microtransaction synergy will march on. But maybe there should be an option for competitive players to disable these skins. It's not that big of a deal. People extrapolating my request to encompass far too many players and situations have the wrong idea. Handling situations like this properly is actually key to the continued success of both esports and microtransactions. I agree with so much that you said here. Also Blizzard could provide an option to disable skins and I would find it good, but I just don't think they will and nobody should get angry about that.
However I don't agree with the implication that skins are pay to win, provide an unfair advantage over other players and that players who use skins are abusive. Someone even called it legal cheating lol.
Skins are acceptable microtransactions, exactly because they do not affect gameplay. If a sc2 skin affects gameplay because of a mistake from an artist, then we should just give them feedback and it should get fixed. I agree with you and think, in the long run, skins will even enhance the viewer and player experience, by making it more easy to differentiate units in a mirror matchup.
So I think the disable skins option would be fine, but it would simply be used by players who do not like skins (for whatever reason), not by competitive players, since skins have or will have no impact on the competitiveness. Lots of high level players like to play with skins.
At HSC we saw skins in pretty much every game and I think we can agree on the fact the HSC players are competitive.
Obviously encountering a new skin for the first time after release can be confusing (although personally I never had this experience in sc2, just in other games where heroes look completely different), but learning that there is a new skin is just part of the game. Every pro should be able to adapt after a few games.
|
Instead of just a disable skins option I would like to have the option to have full control of what the game on my end looks like. So I'd be able to enable a certain skin for my opponent, provided I own it of course.
And yeah I know that's not likely to happen.
|
On November 17 2017 01:44 Penev wrote: Instead of just a disable skins option I would like to have the option to have full control of what the game on my end looks like. So I'd be able to enable a certain skin for my opponent, provided I own it of course.
And yeah I know that's not likely to happen. i'd pay for that option. make it part of the Warchest #2 maybe?
|
On November 17 2017 01:44 Penev wrote: Instead of just a disable skins option I would like to have the option to have full control of what the game on my end looks like. So I'd be able to enable a certain skin for my opponent, provided I own it of course.
And yeah I know that's not likely to happen. That would indeed be a sick feature! Equip your own skins on enemy units, holy hell.
On the other hand it takes away power from the opponent, not sure now . Maybe it gets too complicated.
|
On November 17 2017 00:55 Aegwynn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? No there isn't. They need to fix this problem asap. Great. Not a good time to expect a patch soon then, what with Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up. Watched Ryung earlier playing against someone with what looked like 6 shield batteries outside the ramp of his natural - LOL.
As for skins, even though I haven't played in quite some time, I buy these things for myself (announcer packs too). I don't care if anyone else sees them.
|
After testing some builds with a budy we found it is possible with rax,reactor,expo,rax and a bunker on low ground to hold the oracle timing you can have 7 marines by the time it reaches your main, one in the bunker 6 in base the bunker denies the sheild batteries at your ramp, from there you can tech to medivacs and hit a delayed 16 marine drop timing. this build proxy rax, proxy ghost rush, and fast engi bay appear to be the only Terran builds that even have a chance vs oracle shield battery rushes. Problamaticly if Protoss scouts your blind counter they can proxy double robo instead, without air units off a 1-1-1 double robo is very challenging to hold immortals chew up marines like it's nothing..
|
On November 17 2017 03:01 washikie wrote: After testing some builds with a budy we found it is possible with rax,reactor,expo,rax and a bunker on low ground to hold the oracle timing you can have 7 marines by the time it reaches your main, one in the bunker 6 in base the bunker denies the sheild batteries at your ramp, from there you can tech to medivacs and hit a delayed 16 marine drop timing. this build proxy rax, proxy ghost rush, and fast engi bay appear to be the only Terran builds that even have a chance vs oracle shield battery rushes. Problamaticly if Protoss scouts your blind counter they can proxy double robo instead, without air units off a 1-1-1 double robo is very challenging to hold immortals chew up marines like it's nothing.. Are you sure you test the 12pylon version of the build? Because with 12 pylon proxy oracle arrives terran base at 3:00. According to Special only way not to die is building super early ebay which puts you behind anyways and doesn't help with the shield battery contain at all.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
Miss and Mr Horner is so fun and crazy After a long time considering buying something. This is really something that hit me.
Thanks, Blizzard(I hope they read it here )
|
Without reverting the widow mine nerf, how would you balance TvP?
|
On November 17 2017 00:55 Aegwynn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? No there isn't. They need to fix this problem asap. CC first into 3 rax and rax -> gas -> reactor -> CC build enough marines in time. Not perfect solutions by any means but they'll get you started on the ladder. For the top level, IMHO the former is too greedy to develop into a standard opener and the latter lacks a reaper for scouting and creating space. My guess is either people will figure out other builds or Blizzard will need to patch it.
|
/quietlyenjoyingcooplikecheapymccheapskate
|
On November 17 2017 08:36 grizzlybear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 00:55 Aegwynn wrote:On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? No there isn't. They need to fix this problem asap. CC first into 3 rax and rax -> gas -> reactor -> CC build enough marines in time. Not perfect solutions by any means but they'll get you started on the ladder. For the top level, IMHO the former is too greedy to develop into a standard opener and the latter lacks a reaper for scouting and creating space. My guess is either people will figure out other builds or Blizzard will need to patch it.
How much does SCV scout cost?
|
On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data?
Actually, there is a build that works really well (at least up to masters level). I'm not going to give the supply timings, but it's basically very, very hard to time correctly. One mistake and you're behind or supply blocked.
1 Supply depot with 1st produced SCV, at top ramp. 2 Barracks and Refinery simultaneously when depot is done 3 Second barracks when you can afford it 4 Second supply depot at ramp (sooner than later to deny scout) 5 Precisely timed second refinery so that you can start factory and rax techlab the moment your second rax finishes 6 Factory 7 Choice of Combat shield or stim (depends on ordering a bit). 8 Orbital & 3rd depot 9 Reactor on Factory & Starport. When done, switch, and start cyclone & 2 medivacs. 10 Ebay With this build, you will have enough marines to hold anything early, including the 3min oracle timing, plus when your medivacs with 15/16 marines leave to attack with stim done, you have cyclone at home to defend, tank production ready, missle turret available if you want to build.
During your attack, you WILL have more firepower than your opponent. Don't lose any. Meanwhile, keep them pinned, build your 2nd (and maybe 3rd) CC, and get your ekon in superior position.
A lot of people might complain that this is "noob" to go 1-base. Whatever. It works, and if you do it right, it works really, really well. And it holds basically everything.
And the point is, by the time your attack is done, you're in a better position than the protoss economically.
The key is to make them pay for having a faster economy than you by building as much as possible to start and bashing them with it without taking bad fights (i.e. ones where you lose the majority of your pressure).
This works against: Proxy oracle DT rush Fast 3 Nexus Cannon rush Immortal rush
|
On November 17 2017 10:33 KR_4EVR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? Actually, there is a build that works really well (at least up to masters level). I'm not going to give the supply timings, but it's basically very, very hard to time correctly. One mistake and you're behind or supply blocked. 1 Supply depot with 1st produced SCV, at top ramp. 2 Barracks and Refinery simultaneously when depot is done 3 Second barracks when you can afford it 4 Second supply depot at ramp (sooner than later to deny scout) 5 Precisely timed second refinery so that you can start factory and rax techlab the moment your second rax finishes 6 Factory 7 Choice of Combat shield or stim (depends on ordering a bit). 8 Orbital & 3rd depot 9 Reactor on Factory & Starport. When done, switch, and start cyclone & 2 medivacs. 10 Ebay With this build, you will have enough marines to hold anything early, including the 3min oracle timing, plus when your medivacs with 15/16 marines leave to attack with stim done, you have cyclone at home to defend, tank production ready, missle turret available if you want to build. During your attack, you WILL have more firepower than your opponent. Don't lose any. Meanwhile, keep them pinned, build your 2nd (and maybe 3rd) CC, and get your ekon in superior position. A lot of people might complain that this is "noob" to go 1-base. Whatever. It works, and if you do it right, it works really, really well. And it holds basically everything. And the point is, by the time your attack is done, you're in a better position than the protoss economically. The key is to make them pay for having a faster economy than you by building as much as possible to start and bashing them with it without taking bad fights (i.e. ones where you lose the majority of your pressure). This works against: Proxy oracle DT rush Fast 3 Nexus Cannon rush Immortal rush
Before patch I am certain I had barely held with fast non proxy oracles saving energy on wards which makes terran behind. After patch it is hard to call since the chornoboost is weaker for longer game and the overcharging pylon is gone.
The best way to fix the problem is to remove the initial 50 energy.
|
On November 16 2017 18:09 ProMeTheus112 wrote: In games like Quake or UT, there was always the option of turning opponents skins to either a specific skin or a bright colored version of their skin so that the readability is top notch. Good players would also usually play on very low graphic settings not so they would get more FPS, but so they would get maximum read with no small details getting in the way of viewing everything clear instantly all the time.
It's the dev's job to either give the players these options, or only make skins that will be perfectly or equally comfortable to read the gameplay, or both. That is if they care about the competitive players. Unless you just want it to be part of the game that you can gain an extra edge by camouflaging your units by switching to a bought skin, which is pretty dumb from a starcraft player point of view I think @@
For the record, and this goes for the other people saying Quake is a shining example of visibility and customization:
Quake Champions does not follow this trend, and considering it for the moment is the newest and most popular quake, it's disingenuous to say quake has a way to turn off skins. Instead, they have their own cluttered skins and have plenty of problems with visibility in the game, with no supported way to remove textures, simplify the environment, and so on.
Like it or not, it's just the norm.
|
I'm actually believe in Blizzard. They should fix it, no doubts. Also Stalkers i'm pretty sure they are quite strong right now. Don't see any good unit for terran as a core unit. Probably, marauders with some buff (+HP)?
|
On November 17 2017 12:37 engesser1 wrote: I'm actually believe in Blizzard. They should fix it, no doubts. Also Stalkers i'm pretty sure they are quite strong right now. Don't see any good unit for terran as a core unit. Probably, marauders with some buff (+HP)?
Terran units are still quite strong in the midgame , especially when using hit and run tactics. Infact I think that drops and nexus snipes got significantly stronger this patch. The problem is that most terran players At least in masters and below (my range of experience) can't make it to the midgame in any kind of decent shape. Protoss has a huge range of abusive allins and pressure builds that they have to account for in there build to play a solid style and they eiether outright lose to allins, or lose to macro openings because they had to blind counter allins and play from behind..
|
On November 17 2017 12:50 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 12:37 engesser1 wrote: I'm actually believe in Blizzard. They should fix it, no doubts. Also Stalkers i'm pretty sure they are quite strong right now. Don't see any good unit for terran as a core unit. Probably, marauders with some buff (+HP)? Terran units are still quite strong in the midgame , especially when using hit and run tactics. Infact I think that drops and nexus snipes got significantly stronger this patch. The problem is that most terran players At least in masters and below (my range of experience) can't make it to the midgame in any kind of decent shape. Protoss has a huge range of abusive allins and pressure builds that they have to account for in there build to play a solid style and they eiether outright lose to allins, or lose to macro openings because they had to blind counter allins and play from behind.. I wasn't talking about that or late game (we find a way, i believe). I was talking about 3min oracle's problem and early pressure with stalkers/bs.
|
On November 16 2017 21:34 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 19:44 Agh wrote:On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
You're incredibly naive. Hopefully blizzard just takes the initiative in just adding a client side toggle to disable skins. The alternative solution will be like what most people do in league, just patch and replace the files for the skins. Both sides win no matter the course. The people that want to see their 'cool' units get to do so, those that don't want their playing experience negatively impacted don't have to. 'What most people do in league' rofl Who is naive?
I'm sorry what's funny about what I said?
Unless they have changed their stance in the last few years it was more than possible tor replace all skins client side with their default version. When Riot released that they were alright with this I followed suit and so did many others.
|
On November 17 2017 12:50 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 12:37 engesser1 wrote: I'm actually believe in Blizzard. They should fix it, no doubts. Also Stalkers i'm pretty sure they are quite strong right now. Don't see any good unit for terran as a core unit. Probably, marauders with some buff (+HP)? Terran units are still quite strong in the midgame , especially when using hit and run tactics.
Wow! What nonsense we are forced to read right here
Hit and run is absolutly not a tactic, H&R is only to survive to chargelot, or speedlings. Ofc Terran is forced to kite with his bioball if he wants to avoid to die quickly. Terran has no T3 units which would allow him to attack with ease his opponent. He has to play all game long with tier 1 tier 2 units and don't forget upgrades. Obviously, he abuses of his mobility thanks to medivacs.
|
On November 17 2017 15:50 Obsidian55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 12:50 washikie wrote:On November 17 2017 12:37 engesser1 wrote: I'm actually believe in Blizzard. They should fix it, no doubts. Also Stalkers i'm pretty sure they are quite strong right now. Don't see any good unit for terran as a core unit. Probably, marauders with some buff (+HP)? Terran units are still quite strong in the midgame , especially when using hit and run tactics. Wow! What nonsense we are forced to read right here Hit and run is absolutly not a tactic, H&R is only to survive to chargelot, or speedlings. Ofc Terran is forced to kite with his bioball if he wants to avoid to die quickly. Terran has no T3 units which would allow him to attack with ease his opponent. He has to play all game long with tier 1 tier 2 units and don't forget upgrades. Obviously, he abuses of his mobility thanks to medivacs.
first of all way to quote me out of context you ignore all the other things I said that preface my argument. I wrote
On November 17 2017 12:50 washikie wrote:
Terran units are still quite strong in the midgame , especially when using hit and run tactics. Infact I think that drops and nexus snipes got significantly stronger this patch. The problem is that most terran players At least in masters and below (my range of experience) can't make it to the midgame in any kind of decent shape. Protoss has a huge range of abusive allins and pressure builds that they have to account for in there build to play a solid style and they eiether outright lose to allins, or lose to macro openings because they had to blind counter allins and play from behind..
for context I'm a masters Terran so no bias man. I'm not saying terran is fine right now, I'm saying that the problem is not terran units are to week, the problem is terran is usually to wounded from the early game to use there good units. I dont know why you correlated hit and run tactics with kiting?? What I meant was that terran midgame medivac drops are more dangerous than ever with removal of msc, you can pull the toss army apart and than crush the parts, just like in hots. The issue is terran can almost never get to mid game in half decent shape because of all the early game shenanigans toss has. as for late game, despite the stalker buff ranged libs are still pretty damn good, the problem is just once agian how do you get to that point while staying even with protoss in a meta where the number of potential game ending allins forces you to open in a very disadvantageous and predictable way to stay alive?
|
|
Well, OK, I misunderstood your "hit and run" expression. Simply, you talk about drop play. But I still disagree with you about chances has Terran to make some damages with only marines marauders and medivacs even if he multidrops like a crazy korean.
Tell me how to make damages with no AOE in my composition anymore. In HOTS, a WM was able to decimate a fully mineral line of probes or drones in one shot. ( maybe it was a little bit too strong ). Here and now, WM can be dodge with a sacrificed probe, no need obs anymore, and tanks are crushed by a small bunsh of blink stalkers helped by a shield battery. IMO, Drops in HoTS were way more dangerous just because of WM. Now drop without AOE or only one WM are not so lethal.
As you say, in state, early game forces terran to make some choices which put him behind economicaly and let him with less army supply than his opponent, so when the terran is able to go out of his base on a stim +1 medivac timing, the toss is on 3 bases and enough units to deal with a simple marines marauders drop. Then, if the toss knows macroing a little bit, he wins the game.
I don't want to tell about Cyclones or ravens, in state, those units are useful only in rare cases.
Finally, I just want to tell this patch is a pure joke by Blizzard. I will not play again before an emergency patch.
|
On November 17 2017 09:16 Odowan Paleolithic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:36 grizzlybear wrote:On November 17 2017 00:55 Aegwynn wrote:On November 16 2017 22:49 DeadByDawn wrote: Is there a T counter build to the 3 min Oracle, that does not leave you dead moments later? I was thinking of starting to play again, but not sure that now is the time. Did they mention any timeline for a balance redress once they have data? No there isn't. They need to fix this problem asap. CC first into 3 rax and rax -> gas -> reactor -> CC build enough marines in time. Not perfect solutions by any means but they'll get you started on the ladder. For the top level, IMHO the former is too greedy to develop into a standard opener and the latter lacks a reaper for scouting and creating space. My guess is either people will figure out other builds or Blizzard will need to patch it. How much does SCV scout cost?
50 Minerals. :^)
Both T and P are 'forced' into scouting in both mirrors and opposing match-ups now. 17 SCV scout doesn't feel the greatest, especially when up until this point a reaper gave you everything that you could have wanted for the initial phase.
It's possible to scout and react to so there really is no problem there, we'll just have to wait and see if there is any follow up to it that actually makes it completely broken. The shield battery contain is probably a bigger 'issue' overall but most people keep trying non-viable openings against it and thus we get to the discussion at hand.
I don't think Sc2 has had any true one dimensional forced build scenarios like the one at hand so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
|
On November 17 2017 17:46 Obsidian55 wrote:In HOTS, a WM was able to decimate a fully mineral line of probes or drones in one shot. ( maybe it was a little bit too strong ). Here and now, WM can be dodge with a sacrificed probe, no need obs anymore [...]. IMO, Drops in HoTS were way more dangerous just because of WM. Now drop without AOE or only one WM are not so lethal. The only difference between HotS and current WM is the visibility while recharging, regarding mineral line harassment. Probes and drones are still dying to a single shot. Are you implying players' improved reactions to a burrowed WM in mineral line is a nerf in this patch?
Edit: spelling and grammar
|
|
Thanks for sharing, Inno is on another level :D
|
been so long since I last played ladder, getting way too stressed to press that start game button. what a big patch though
|
On November 17 2017 18:26 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 17:46 Obsidian55 wrote:In HOTS, a WM was able to decimate a fully mineral line of probes or drones in one shot. ( maybe it was a little bit too strong ). Here and now, WM can be dodge with a sacrificed probe, no need obs anymore [...]. IMO, Drops in HoTS were way more dangerous just because of WM. Now drop without AOE or only one WM are not so lethal. The only difference between HotS and current WM is the visibility while recharging, regarding mineral line harassment. Probes and drones are still dying to a single shot. Are you implying players' improved reactions to a burrowed WM in mineral line is a nerf in this patch?
WM is maybe unit the most modified since HOTS release. The splash damage has been nerfed since start of HOTS as well as spash radius.
WM in HOTS: wiki.teamliquid.net
We passed from a totally broken unit to litteraly useless unit. That s fine
I don't understand what you say. OFC WM burrowed in a mineral line forces a reaction from the opponent like to sacrifice a probe, like before patch, but difference is now WM is revealed during its cooldown so no need obs, only units to kill it.
|
I feel like the Protoss made some easily correctable mistakes there like losing that void ray for nothing. Does Inno break the contain if it is part of the fight?
|
On November 17 2017 23:14 Boggyb wrote:I feel like the Protoss made some easily correctable mistakes there like losing that void ray for nothing. Does Inno break the contain if it is part of the fight? Well, replace it with herO, and Inno is dead for 5 min. he played against Cyan, just 6.2k protoss.
|
Poll: How do you feel about the Raven changes?Negative (8) 31% Very positive (7) 27% Positive (5) 19% Very negative (4) 15% Neutral (2) 8% 26 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Raven changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Cyclone changes?Neutral (11) 61% Positive (5) 28% Very positive (1) 6% Very negative (1) 6% Negative (0) 0% 18 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Cyclone changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Ghost changes?Neutral (8) 47% Positive (3) 18% Negative (3) 18% Very negative (2) 12% Very positive (1) 6% 17 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Ghost changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Smart Servos upgrade?Neutral (5) 33% Very positive (4) 27% Very negative (4) 27% Positive (1) 7% Negative (1) 7% 15 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Smart Servos upgrade? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Widow Mine nerf?Very negative (12) 48% Very positive (8) 32% Positive (3) 12% Negative (2) 8% Neutral (0) 0% 25 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Widow Mine nerf? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Nexus changes?Positive (10) 63% Very positive (2) 13% Neutral (2) 13% Negative (1) 6% Very negative (1) 6% 16 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Nexus changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Shield Battery?Positive (6) 33% Very positive (4) 22% Neutral (3) 17% Negative (3) 17% Very negative (2) 11% 18 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Shield Battery? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Mothership changes?Very positive (9) 56% Positive (3) 19% Neutral (3) 19% Negative (1) 6% Very negative (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Mothership changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Disruptor changes?Neutral (9) 53% Positive (6) 35% Negative (1) 6% Very negative (1) 6% Very positive (0) 0% 17 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Disruptor changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Colossus changes?Positive (5) 50% Negative (3) 30% Neutral (2) 20% Very positive (0) 0% Very negative (0) 0% 10 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Colossus changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Stalker changes?Very positive (4) 29% Neutral (4) 29% Very negative (3) 21% Positive (2) 14% Negative (1) 7% 14 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Stalker changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Oracle changes?Positive (6) 60% Negative (2) 20% Very positive (1) 10% Neutral (1) 10% Very negative (0) 0% 10 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Oracle changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Infestor changes?Positive (4) 27% Very negative (4) 27% Neutral (3) 20% Negative (3) 20% Very positive (1) 7% 15 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Infestor changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Viper changes?Neutral (4) 40% Positive (3) 30% Very positive (1) 10% Negative (1) 10% Very negative (1) 10% 10 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Viper changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Swarm Host change?Very positive (3) 27% Positive (3) 27% Very negative (3) 27% Neutral (2) 18% Negative (0) 0% 11 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Swarm Host change? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
Poll: How do you feel about the Lurker Den changes?Positive (5) 56% Very positive (1) 11% Neutral (1) 11% Negative (1) 11% Very negative (1) 11% 9 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the Lurker Den changes? (Vote): Very positive (Vote): Positive (Vote): Neutral (Vote): Negative (Vote): Very negative
|
On November 16 2017 03:02 sc-darkness wrote: Downloaded the patch, played a game and I can already say it's still not fun. Back to SC: Remastered and CS: GO it is.
Translation: With this new patch, I'm still really badly
|
I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1
|
4 years without playing. I'm gold 3 now :S
also wtf, had to play 4 ZvZ in a row.
|
Skins are negatively affecting gameplay and it is the biggest gameplay and fairness problem the game has.
If you buy skins, your units are mono-color and hence you have the advantage of making it harder for your opponents to distinguish your units (e.g. immortals are grey, stalkers are grey). If you don't buy skins, you don't have this advantage, they are easier to distinguish due to different colors (e.g. immortals are yellow, stalkers are grey).
As it stands, the F2P ad is false advertising. There is pay-for-advantage in SC2 caused by mono-color skins.
There needs to be an option to turn off seeing skins. In fact, this could even increase the desirability of skins, and thus, the amount of money that Blizzard makes as a corporation, by allowing them to be used in co-op, without restriction in large game formats, in WCS tournaments, without ruining the readability of the game.
|
8716 Posts
On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in.
Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it.
|
On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it. I think when there is a consensus from players from all 3 races (example: Oracle timing hits too early) It's safe to say that there is in fact a problem.
|
I'm experiencing a lot of crashes after 2v2 games with custom team.
|
8716 Posts
On November 18 2017 04:43 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it. I think when there is a consensus from players from all 3 races (example: Oracle timing hits too early) It's safe to say that there is in fact a problem. The Oracle timings were already shown in the HSC games. There's no point in talking about them. The "discussions" are about other things.
|
On November 17 2017 13:28 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 21:34 Ansibled wrote:On November 16 2017 19:44 Agh wrote:On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
You're incredibly naive. Hopefully blizzard just takes the initiative in just adding a client side toggle to disable skins. The alternative solution will be like what most people do in league, just patch and replace the files for the skins. Both sides win no matter the course. The people that want to see their 'cool' units get to do so, those that don't want their playing experience negatively impacted don't have to. 'What most people do in league' rofl Who is naive? I'm sorry what's funny about what I said? Unless they have changed their stance in the last few years it was more than possible tor replace all skins client side with their default version. When Riot released that they were alright with this I followed suit and so did many others.
I can confirm that very very few players in league do that.
This is mostly because there is no need to. The skins in LoL are well desinged, and dont give an advantage.
I know that there are some skins that are banned from tournament play, because supposedly they can give an advantage, but I disagree.
|
On November 18 2017 17:42 NasusAndDraven wrote:
I can confirm that very very few players in league do that.
This is mostly because there is no need to. The skins in LoL are well desinged, and dont give an advantage.
I know that there are some skins that are banned from tournament play, because supposedly they can give an advantage, but I disagree.
LoL is different because you don't have to tell units apart.
I found LoL skins to be horrible honestly, but that's because i suck at it i barely know Champions, so early game sometimes when a gank show up i don't know who the ganker is because he look so different than the original (much more than in SC)
But i should memorize the enemy team from the start. In SC i guess we will get used to skins, but we also have to quickly identify the enemy composition, and some skins can make this an hard task.
|
On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it.
The evidence I'm using to suggest is that there are videos online about how abusive protoss is against terran with certain openers. Those videos are being produced by the protoss themselves, laughing at how abusive it is.
|
On November 18 2017 17:42 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 13:28 Agh wrote:On November 16 2017 21:34 Ansibled wrote:On November 16 2017 19:44 Agh wrote:On November 16 2017 16:35 papaz wrote:
I cannot believe someone like you is still arguing about the skins. What is so hard to understand? For the casual playerbase skins mean a lot, they are tagerted here. That also includes showing your skin to the opponent. Read the last sentence a couple of times so you REALLY understand why paying for turning off skins will NEVER be an option.
In almost all games on all levels the outcome of a game wont be decided because of the skin of the unit. Your ladder rank over time will DEFINETELY NOT depend on skins being on or off.
And in tournaments skins are off so no game outcome is affected by skins.
How on earth this subject is so difficult to understand from Blizzard and overall playerbase point of view and see someone like you argue over this for so long is beyond me.
You're incredibly naive. Hopefully blizzard just takes the initiative in just adding a client side toggle to disable skins. The alternative solution will be like what most people do in league, just patch and replace the files for the skins. Both sides win no matter the course. The people that want to see their 'cool' units get to do so, those that don't want their playing experience negatively impacted don't have to. 'What most people do in league' rofl Who is naive? I'm sorry what's funny about what I said? Unless they have changed their stance in the last few years it was more than possible tor replace all skins client side with their default version. When Riot released that they were alright with this I followed suit and so did many others. I can confirm that very very few players in league do that. This is mostly because there is no need to. The skins in LoL are well desinged, and dont give an advantage. I know that there are some skins that are banned from tournament play, because supposedly they can give an advantage, but I disagree. In MOBAs, you know your opponent's hero composition from the start, but in SC2, you don't, which is why skins that degrade readability, such as mono-color skins for differently default colored units, are ruining gameplay.
|
8716 Posts
On November 18 2017 23:14 OPL3SA2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it. The evidence I'm using to suggest is that there are videos online about how abusive protoss is against terran with certain openers. Those videos are being produced by the protoss themselves, laughing at how abusive it is.
At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening.
|
On November 18 2017 02:23 paralleluniverse wrote: Skins are negatively affecting gameplay and it is the biggest gameplay and fairness problem the game has.
If you buy skins, your units are mono-color and hence you have the advantage of making it harder for your opponents to distinguish your units (e.g. immortals are grey, stalkers are grey). If you don't buy skins, you don't have this advantage, they are easier to distinguish due to different colors (e.g. immortals are yellow, stalkers are grey).
As it stands, the F2P ad is false advertising. There is pay-for-advantage in SC2 caused by mono-color skins.
There needs to be an option to turn off seeing skins. In fact, this could even increase the desirability of skins, and thus, the amount of money that Blizzard makes as a corporation, by allowing them to be used in co-op, without restriction in large game formats, in WCS tournaments, without ruining the readability of the game. I couldn't even imagine how annoying of a TCG player you must be.
|
On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it. interesting analogy. thanks for having the balls to say it. you probably learn almost nothing by being in this thread. That said, your input and insights are appreciated.
1 pro who i don't think is "working the refs" in these feedback threads is Snute. I think he is being pretty honest. but, hey what do i know? maybe he is good enough at "working the refs" that guys like me can't detect it.
|
Queen injects 4 Larva larva only Lair/Hive. If Hatchery - Queen injects 3 Larva. 3 Lair or Hive, +3 larva. Simple )
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On November 18 2017 04:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:13 OPL3SA2 wrote: I'm so angry that this thread is full of people who are new at the game (obviously) who are complaining about being able, or not being able, to nerf SKINS on the OPPOSING PLAYER. Man o man o man o man I thought starcraft 2 was a hardcore game played by hardcore gamers. I cannot believe I walked into this conversation.
Meanwhile, there are people trying to talk about the SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BALANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT A MAJOR TOURNAMENT FROM KICKING OFF. That's how bad the balance is is that all the pros agree how bad it is.
By the way, +1 really digging all of the terran jokes by bad players who think that a unanimous consensus from pro gamers about the horrible balance of the game means nothing +1 Pros complaining about balance is like basketball players complaining about calls or no-calls. It's part of the game. They're just working the refs, or in this case the devs, to their own advantage. They're not giving an honest, objective assessment as a free service to everyone, lol. They're not even doing the kind of research/work necessary for that. They simply practice and try to win and when they hit a dead-end that they can't solve immediately, they complain that it's imbalanced. Wow, such insight. They're trying to affect things to their own benefit, period. No one ever goes out of their way to argue for another race. At most, they joke about it, or use such talk as part of mind games when they know other pros are listening. This has happened every single time major changes are put in. Balance changes will come, if necessary, in response to tournament results, like they always should. Devs shouldn't give in to nebulous opinions based on practice. Once a problem is properly demonstrated and proven, changes will come to fix it.
This is a great analogy. From my perspective as a person that runs major tournaments these current builds would absolutely not prevent me from kicking off an event so it's hard to take a post like that seriously.
|
|
|
|