Community Feedback Update - March 8

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 4 11 Next
If I didn't know better, I would have swore that Starcraft just came out last week. After all this time, we're talking about fundamental questions as if they're novel. Maybe in 10 years we can discuss WoL. Personally, I don't care what the philosophy is, I just want to see action that matches it. I don't like being lied to and made a fool of.

You can't speak of a love for diversity on one hand, citing an appreciation for games that don't play out the same, while ignoring that P vs Z is the antithesis of that, because you refuse to give Toss any options (diversity) in dealing with mutas. What % of games are phoenix openers into mass immortals? About the same % as the broodlord infestor era.

As long as it's close to impossible to not have a tournament where a race wins some games, allowing for "game could be balanced due to minuscule sample size that was close to 45% win rate," may as well actually try to make drastic changes. Like actually breathing diversity into the game. If these excuses can fly, which they are that, then there shouldn't be reluctance to try to make the game better...

No one plays balance test maps. The proposed changes aren't drastic enough, anyways, to need a special period of testing. Worst case scenario? Zerg goes from 62% win rate to Toss winning 63%? Stop wasting time and just go live with the proposals. Instant feedback/results trumps still having to talk about fundamental questions due to dragging everything out and never giving firm stances.

Zerg is the easiest race and they're performing the best. I'm understanding the asymmetrical part fine, but the balance escapes me. Where exactly does Toss have the advantage? Is it not having to think what to make due to not having diversity? Muta = phoenix? Let's try to make sure reality reflects what we say.
A lot of words. Hope we will see changes in near future
I... am honestly disappointed in what I see in this update. Firstly, there wasn't all that much on PvZ (though what was there was nice, definitely). You speak of diversity, yet say nothing of the fact that PvZ is anything BUT diverse. Nor, in fact, do you even address the lack of ability for Toss to be able to deal with a Muta transition without opening Stargate. Also, no mention of anything about the colossus. It has no role. Not even a little.

What really disappoints me is the very fact that you're even considering getting rid of mech altogether. You're advocating the inability to use a over a third of the Terran tech tree. You're considering biomech, but that can never, ever be a thing given the way Terran as a whole is designed. Without a complete redesign from the ground up, biomech will be nothing more than a pipedream. You either have Bio (with limited mech support) or Mech. Between the cost of infrastructure, the seperate upgrades of bio and mech, as well as the fact that 90% of splash damage Terran has does friendly fire, biomech is completely impossible to do as it is now.

Don't get rid of Mech. Having the Mech playstyle as an option for Terran is extremely important. What you forget is that IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TURTLE STYLE MECH that is played. You compare LotV to BroodWar, yet you forget that Mech was something that was often seen in BroodWar. Something that we don't have now.

Turtle Mech as a whole is effectively dead as a playstyle now anyway due to several factors - the main reason being the continual expanding necessary. Turtling on three bases isn't really viable right now, what with the limited resources which mine out far faster and force expanding as a result.

Then there's the fact that the Raven was nerfed extremely hard (which was warranted). Personally, I'd like to see the Raven redesigned. Remove PDD and give it lockdown or defensive matrix or something like that. Make it effective in small numbers but not large.

Between the cyclone (which does need a buff, because it's far to expensive for what it actually does) and the hellion, we could also have mobile, aggressive skirmishes across the map, contesting map control, harassing bases and workers (Just like you like, Davie!), we could have a form of mobile mech that allows for entertaining games, while still being positional in play as well.

Don't kill Mech. There's plenty of things that you can do to keep it alive, interesting, and actually playable.
Protoss is still dead, then? Okay, fine.
Bio in TvZ still needs to have a use after ultras are on the map. "Cracklings" seem to play and important role for zerg right along side their T3 brothers like the ultra. If a terran is on bio when ultra armor finishes he has to trade most of it out in attempts to keep the zerg on his side of the map and spam out a cheesy number of of liberators.

In general one of the biggest problems with terran seems to be the reliance on the liberator. As soon as you approach mid to late game TvZ or TvP massing up a lot liberators often time seem to be one of the only viable strategies. They certainly seem to be more effective and mobile than level 3 terran options like the Thor or BC.
I dont see how increasing the time between ravenger shots helps protoss in the early and mid-game. The problem is that pylons with overcharge are just instantly destroyed. And it does not matter how long the time between the shots is, if they just need the initial shot.

Further it seems that zerg has quite a lot more diversity in all stages of the game, while protoss in PvZ is forced to go phoenix opening into robo tech. I guess the numbers of protoss players will now just go further down until something changes here.
Hooray!

03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
With this method, we have to make the delay before players can unload Siege Tanks equal to the unsiege time to prevent Medivac pickup from being the main way players should unsiege their tanks.


I don't know why that's a bad thing. It requires supply and resources in medivacs and micro beyond just hitting the unsiege button.

There's nothing wrong with the delay option, this just seems like weird logic.

03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
Instead, we can adjust the firing delay upon being dropped to what feels best after testing, from where it is now to the same time it would take to unsiege.


Yep, definitely more room to adjust the ability with the delay timer than just dropping tanks in tank mode.

03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
Some of the staler, more boring games (to play and watch) have been mech only.


Mostly, I'd argue, this was because PDD made attacking a terran at any point really a problem with mech.

When it's not "mass raven and win", Mech games (in my experience) have been dynamic as the mech player attempts to harass with hellions (and occasionally banshees) and the opponent tries to pull the mech player out of position.

03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
we wonder if we can do the Ravager timing nerf first, and then discuss this one if further nerfs to Zerg are needed in ZvP.


They're two sides of the same coin.

With more starting workers, it's easier to pump out some zerglings in numbers that require a full committal from Protoss to even attempt to slow the zerg down on the ground. There's no pressure build. There's no early-map-control for Protoss.

With total loss of map-control absent an all-in, Protoss is forced to try to out-macro the zerg (and / or hope for damage from only the stargate). Thus everyone opens stargate. This is too predictable. It requires tons of gas and a very quick investment (meaning fewer starting units) and thus it's easy to counter (quick spores + queens which help macro anyway) and easier to all-in for the zerg (since the opponent won't have nearly any units).

The current plan for us is to proceed with [exploring and preparing for Zerg changes, especially those that will help in ZvP. This side is definitely looking clearer as time is passing, and we need to be prepared for a balance patch in this area.


Help Protoss DPS versus general units going into the early-to-mid game and things will clear up.

03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
We truly believe in the importance of alternating the strengths per situation or strategy throughout the course of the whole game.


03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
If the strength of every strategy during every moment of the game were equal, we would see a much greater percentage of games where players simply build up without attacking, as we saw during Wings of Liberty.


These statements are both very much true. But these strengths don't have to be on a per-race basis. If, instead, they were on a per-composition basis, then players would feel empowered to play their playstyle with their preferred race while each composition still had strong and weak points throughout the game.


In Brood War Mech was widespread. The reason why it's not that interesting at the moment is because Mech gets horrible trades when moving out. In Brood War Mech was able to actually move out. In Sc2 you sit in your base and turtle until you can move out.
When "diversity" comes to the terran discussion, I only can think about the units that nobody uses in professional matches, or units that nobody mix with the old BioBall. Those units are not produced in barracks, they are produced from Factories or Starports, and they benefit from a separated paths of tech.

I think the real problem in terran concerning diversity is the splitted path of upgrades. I think this is a wall that comes from the Do-it-like-BW way. Maybe you need to try to mix ground upgrades from factories and barracks units, separated from the air upgrades, just like protoss does, and from then start the fine tuning on cost and time for them. Just remember that in BW like HOTS you can play only mech estrategies, meanwhile, in LOTV you can't turtle due to the new economy model.

I think, this, applied with the Meditank removal can have some results. Terrans will have their MMM mixed with more mech/air units.

The sad part is that this kind of adjustment is too big, and as usual you only want minor changes. Sadly is not beta anymore.
I am so done with this game. It is turning into such a turd. Blizzard please fire david kim and distance yourselves from Korea.
It is clear that Korean match fixers are ruining the design of the game and impacting game development in negative ways. EI. Life throws a few games and then the majority of the players feel like zerg is underpowered because their superstar cant win a game when he is infact throwing them on purpose.
03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
Some of the staler, more boring games (to play and watch) have been mech only.
This is true for SC2 in HotS and WoL, but it seems severely shallow to me to just stop there with the reasoning. Why was it stale in HotS and WoL? Was Mech stale in BW? I think most would answer no. Why?

How Mech should be able to be played is an absolutely huge factor, not just "oh, Mech is Factory units mostly, Mech is boring, Mech therefore shouldn't be competitive, end of logic."

Mech was boring because -- note the word because, it's a word I think should be used more by Blizzard and the community alike -- it was mostly used to sit back and max out on air units. There was less of an incentive to rigorously expand (like there now is in LotV), and Mech often did not have the strength to move out against the likes of Swarm Hosts and strong Protoss armies. Yes, you had the occasional HTOMario-type games, but due to the designs of the Swarm Host, Viper, Tempest, Immortal, and Raven, combined with the lack of a solid mobile (but not too mobile) aspect like the Vulture provided in BW allowing map presence, and the mediocrity of Tanks against armies not as squishy as Bio, it was difficult for Mech to actually be an actively methodical composition as it was in BW.

In LotV, that can be fixed, but not if the logic of the design team is so general and shallow.
Mech players don't like the cancerous turtle mech either...but you have given them absolutely nothing to be able to move out on the map. By the time they can, their opponent has already massed air units. At that point, all of the mech players resources that were put into factories/factory units/ground armory upgrades, that is all useless now.
But if Dayvie feels the need to completely kill positional play, well then upgrades need to be reworked. Keeping them separate at that point is borderline retarded. Protoss/Zerg compositions allow mixed compositions because their upgrades are not split. This will be needed to do if mech is killed off. which btw...is completely bull!@#$.
03/08/2016 04:15 PMPosted by PrinzEugen
03/08/2016 04:04 PMPosted by llllllllllll
pure mech was AWFUL to play against. AWFUL to watch. I support diverse direction!


where is the diversity in this statement?


Do you prefer to watch every game mass bio with combination of 2 tanks??

What happen with Thor, Cyclone, BC and Raven?

I sorry but Terran has other units besides bio and there is no chance against zerg or protos in late game... This is no balance this is lets kill our opponent before late game. Everyone makes marine + marauders + medivacs because they are effective in the beginning and all purpose until mid game and after that what:????

And one more thing - ULTRALISK is too strong specially against terran!!!
Another disappointing week. I am not sure if I will ever agree with you on that stance on terran composition DK and this makes me sad because I love the game so much but I haven't been playing it since LotV.

I don't think you understand what is the implication if you refuse to ever make mech/tank based composition works. By "mixed army" in your post it really just means bio+whatever you splash in. There's hardly any diversity in play style in that. The play style will be the play style of Bio but different supplementing units. The reason why with it brings more diversity to the game with mech play being viable is that mech is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from bio in play style. They are fundamentally different and that's cool. Terran was like 2 races in itself in both WoL and HotS in at least 2 MUs.

The issue about bringing many different units into the play is obviously something that will improve the game but you perhaps missed the point that there will always have to be a core composition that is the base for all different units to supplement. That's what I am talking about here. You seem to be hellbent on refusing to make another play style work when it worked before(let's not even mention the request that mech should be viable vs Protoss).

We are not asking you to make mech the only play style. We are asking you to make siege tanks(core units) and other factory based supplementing units strong enough to stand on their own just like bio units can and if people will bring all these units to mix in with each other to create different variation in play styles then that's up to them. I assure you that if mech units like siege tanks and Thor or Cyclones are strong enough then you won't have to worry about diversity of unit compositions.

Finally, the question that what if mech play with siege tanks as the core unit will be so OP that it will make bio obsolete. That is something that will be almost impossible. First of all, mech play unlike bio is very very map dependent. Bio is so flexible that you can play it in any map and that's its strength. Mapmaking alone could prevent mech play from being OP.
So they're gonna go ahead with the ravager nerf but no mention of the liberator nerf that was in the balance test map?

Overall this was an incredibly disappointing update with very little actual substance. Just lots of waffle.
so true
"Blablabla, comeback later we are not going to change anything. PvZ is not below 25% so everything is fine, oh, eh, the liberator nerf we talked about, forget about it."
03/08/2016 11:18 AMPosted by Dayvie
Siege Tank change
Internally, we tried the changes proposed in recent weeks and they may have felt better than just removing Siege mode pick up entirely. We also tried the popular suggestion of picking up Siege Tanks in Siege mode, with them reverting to normal mode while carried by the Medivac. This wasn’t as good of a solution as increasing the delay before firing because it provides fewer knobs to tune. With this method, we have to make the delay before players can unload Siege Tanks equal to the unsiege time to prevent Medivac pickup from being the main way players should unsiege their tanks. Instead, we can adjust the firing delay upon being dropped to what feels best after testing, from where it is now to the same time it would take to unsiege.


Mr.Kim I've posted suggestions about the siege tank many times and this is one of the better suggestions that I made and people seem to like it more than your really gimmicky idea and also here is what TurtleMafia said on the subject.

Posted by BigBoss
Here's a better idea that I would like to bring up for the siege tank and I'm going to present two ideas and see which one you like best and both can not be picked up in siege mode:

#1 Siege Tank is:

3 Supply
Can fire while on the move in tank mode
Siege Damage is increased to 45(+25 to armor)
Have to research Siege mode once again

I'm a fan of bringing back siege mode research in favor of damage. Yes, it would be an overall nerf. But I'm in favor of whatever will make the tank feel powerful again. I'm not on board with it being this mobile harass unit.


And also what Mr.Raver said on this subject as well:

Decent suggestions, I like them both. I can see Mech becoming viable in TvT/TvZ with these changes. Unfortunately. I don't think Blizzard will implement these ideas because it runs contrary to their philosophy for the game's design

you can find these response here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20742564379?page=3#59
03/08/2016 06:02 PMPosted by Thiaz
"Blablabla, comeback later we are not going to change anything. PvZ is not below 25% so everything is fine, oh, eh, the liberator nerf we talked about, forget about it."


TBH...terran is so dependent on the liberator atm due to the lack of strength in its other units...you want to nerf the liberator? go ahead. but make mech viable to compensate

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum