Yes nerf roaches and marauders plz plz
Printable View
Yes nerf roaches and marauders plz plz
Agree. + Sentries!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei89
Marauders need to shoot slower or have less HP.
They can find out how Zerg players will respond in the metagame.Quote:
Originally Posted by TunaFish
They are not just experimenting on the units, they're experimenting on us.
Nerf this, Nerf that... Nerf Nerf Nerf...
And i keep wondering why Blizzard does this... I'm a fool
Yeah, we better start with how Blizzard is 'fixing' World of Warcraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
"Guys, Warlocks are too strong, we nerf them?", "No, Of course, we buff other 9 classes."
It all come to beating imba with imba instead of nerfing the only imba around...
This is a better course, IMHO. I'm a big fan of the "if you make something awesome, you then make everything that came before it just as awesome" philosophy. Its much better than nerf syndrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Sure, except it isn't awesome, it is more disgusting how good it is... And trying to buff everything else to that level would take ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Sentry is too good(example, but not really a bad one), other units are way underused cause of Sentries. Ok, lets start buffing all Protoss units to the Sentry level. But, when you finish, you discover that Protoss is way too overpowered and that Terran and Zerg can't beat Protoss with anything.
Ok, lets start buffing Zerg, now it is on pair with Protoss, but Terran can't do a thing, ok buff Terrans, oh but now Protoss aren't as good as they were, since T at start > P at start, buff them again!
And there we go into infinite circle of imbalance. Don't know really how that can be a good thing. There is a little bit exaggeration, but it is like that in general.
Seeing as your example is biasedly doing it the wrong way, then yeah it won't sound so good. If the Sentry is too good and the other races can't beat it, you don't start by continuing to buff the Protoss. That's just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
It is pretty much the same outcome even if you look it other way. Sentry is too good, buff Terran, Zerg is now bad, buff Zerg, now other Protoss units are bad, buff them, now again Protoss is imba, buff Terran etc. It will always end up that way if everything you do is buffing, that is the whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
If buffing was that good, than nerfs won't be even there. Of course there need to be proportion of buffs and nerfs for good balance. Some stuff needs buffs, some nerfs etc. You can't do just one of them and hope for good balanced game.
In SC2, there are more units that need some kind of tweaks, more than buffs or nerfs. Also, there were more units that needed nerfs than those that need buffs, but that doesn't mean that buffs aren't just as important as nerfs.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no legitimate excuse for nerfing, unless you screwed up your buffing first.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
I guess I just don't design like Blizzard does. I don't start with something crazy and then try to tone it down, removing what was awesome in place of mediocre. I start small, and build it up, to limit the kind of disillusion we've gone through from SC2's reveal to now.
I think it is worth remembering that stats are purely arbitrary figures. Does it make any difference if Marines have 45 hit points and deal 5 damage while Zerglings have 35 hit points and deal 5 damage or if Marines have 90 hit points and deal 10 damage while Zerglings have 70 hit points and deal 10 damage? At the end of the day, what matters is the relative difference in stats between the units. In other words, whether nerfing the overpowered units or powering others to match it, it doesn't matter.
What Mr Peasant said
So far, SC2 balancing is reduced to stats changing. Something that anybody can do on the map editor. I mean really???? Are they telling us that they reached their creative limit????
http://www.memedepot.com/uploads/0/2...if_serious.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
Demo, there's a limit on how "awesome" you can make a unit without shit happening. For example: Immortals eats Tanks alive, so to compensate win ratio, you make Hellions eat Light units alive, and at the end you have a bunch of very hard counters, with units dying en-masse without really much way of avoiding it, and the game is going to be mostly decided by unit choice.
Well sure, if you START with the most epic shit and it just gets worse from there, like Blizzard did with their "lets think of the coolest crap possible and hope it works!" philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
This is the general level of discourse one expects from KadajSouba: excessive punctuation, not-grammar, and anti-Logic that would make Archer cringe in fear.Quote:
So far, SC2 balancing is reduced to stats changing. Something that anybody can do on the map editor. I mean really???? Are they telling us that they reached their creative limit????
The SC2 map editor can be used to make entirely different genres of games. If you're saying that reaching one's "creative limits" means "only what can be done in the map editor," then there's not much in terms of "creative limits" out there.
Furthermore, most of the balance changes that took SC1's balance from "kinda crappy" to "reasonably balanced" were done as things you could do in SC1's map editor. Modifying unit and building stats.
So I don't know where this "creative limits" crap is coming from.
I think he's just limited creatively to understand what they are doing in terms of how to balance the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Im glad that I can give a purpose to your lives. Oh dont thank me. And the funniest thing is that wankey is saying almost the same that im saying, just look at his spine crawler thread. He must have some personal problem, so its ok lad.
What I was saying is that they are modifying the game with the most mediocre way possible. Creating something, and later destroying it completely by changing its stats. Look at the roach, look at the mothership, the Thor. Thats what i am saying...
Not-grammar? yes-nice.
Well only like 99% of the games are balanced that way... I still don't get it. What would be your way to balancing some game, or SC2 for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
Stats change is just one way. Introducing new mechanics or units could be another.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
For example, some of the original ideas looked really nice. I bet that Warp-in looked so hard to balance at the beginning. But look now. It works really nice. Drop Pods, the original mothership, the first queen and god knows how many others. All those looked really nice.
I was expecting to see new mechanics for the other races. Thats what I wanted to see in Beta. Something new. Balancing NEW mechanics, or NEW units. I wasn't expecting just modifying numbers here and there, because I thought that this wasn't the final shape of the game. But in the end it was, there will be no surprises, there weren't any surprises since the beginning of BETA, just number adjustments.
This kind of balancing is what the 99% of the games you mention make, yes, but once the game is already released. They just adjust things. But this is Beta for godsakes, they can put anything in here and make it work. Anything. Thats my complain.
Did i explain myself???
Again, you have a fundamental misconception of what "beta" means. It doesn't mean "there are a lot of people playing the game".Quote:
But this is Beta for godsakes, they can put anything in here and make it work. Anything. Thats my complain.
Beta is the period of time when you are trying to make the game work so that you can release it. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, those are all in the past. What you have to work with is what you have to work with. The job of beta is to make what's currently there work.
It might ultimately make for a better multiplayer experience if they split the Roach into 2 units, or dumped the Siege Tank in favor of the old Thor + one more Factory unit, or any number of other suggestions. It might not make it better. But there's one thing that's absolutely certain to happen if you make any of these changes:
The game won't be released on time.
Beta is not the time to take any act that would negatively impact the release date. That's why all of the major changes that SC1 had happened before beta, not during it. That's why all of the major changes SC2 had happened before beta, not during it.
Beta is a different kind of development. Most changes you might want to make are intrinsically off the table. That's one of the reasons it was so important that Proton Charge was dumped before beta; because there was never any hope of it being dumped during beta.
I agree. Beta is the time where the game and all its components undergo stress test to see what breaks, where balance is fine tuned and when Blizzard collects feedback from people on glitches, problems and what they don't like. Yes, major changes can arise from this (e.g. how the Corruptor's ability has been changed). However, these would only arise if there have been some major issues or complaints. In other words, it's a bad sign when things get changed around significantly as it means one of the approved ideas didn't work. Moreover, changes at this point are more likely to be ability swaps or the use of fail-safe concepts ; i.e. concepts that are less risky and more or less guaranteed to work as intended because there are less variables involved (such as player styles and creativity).
I do understand you, but as Nicol and peasant said, Beta is pretty much for testing things out and for balancing them. By Balancing them I think exactly that, units' stats change.Quote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
Alpha is or introducing new units and mechanics, Beta can be also, but only at start, because you need time to try those new stuff and balance it. You can't really make new units or some big mechanic(some of those still happens as peasant said Corruption is different, but it isn't that big as new unit) in the end of the Beta, because there is no time to balance it out. And there is two months left of Beta.
There are still two more expansions of SC2, and both of them will have new mechanics and new units, it will be pretty huge, and I really like that, but you can't expect to have all in first expansion of SC2.
[QUOTE=RamiZ;102238]There are still two more expansions of SC2, and both of them will have new mechanics and new unitsQUOTE]
Mmmmm... New units? yeah... New mechanics??? I wouldn't bet on that...
Why not? Looking at WC3: ROC and WC3: TFT, those are really different games with a lot of new mechanics in TFT. In SC1: BW there are only new units, there isn't anything else that changed that much, but that game is very old.Quote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
I expect a lot of things to change in those new expansions, except if they rush them.
Just a single unit can change the whole dynamic of the game. DTs, corsairs, medics and lurkers all made BW play unrecognizably from vanilla SC.
Yeah, but Dynamic =/= Mechanic. Mechanic would be that if in SC2 expansion, all Zerg buildings get uproot ability, and in normal SC2 they didn't(Just some crappy example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Noise