Chaque semaine, David Kim, Senior Game Designer chez Blizzard et responsable de l'équilibrage sur Starcraft II : Legacy of the Void, fait le point sur le développement du jeu et s'exprime sur les prochaines évolutions à venir et sur les retours qu'elles avaient suscités dans la communauté.
Cette semaine, Blizzard parle des changements apportés aux cartes du ladder la semaine prochaine et de modifications pour les zergs et terrans :
- Des modifications apportées aux cartes la semaine prochaines.
- Temple gelé : réduction de la taille du goulot à l'expension naturelle.
- Colonisation EC: supression des zones de ponts près de la troisième base afin d'aider en cas de spawn en position horizontale.
- Carnage sur Korhal EC : suppression des formations rocheuses et réduction de la taille de la rampe dans les bases principales.
Blizzard aborde aussi les modifications à l'équilibrage qu'il souhaite déployer aussi vite que possible en jeu :
- Nerf le Croiseur pour buff la Banshee
Blizzard pense que réduire le coût et facilité l'accès à l'amélioration de vitesse de déplacement de la Banshee est une bonne chose. Mais que si ce buff est trop fort ce sera le croiseur qui se prendra le retour de flammes avec un nerf de ses dégâts Anti-Air avec une partie de ses dégâts qui passeraient en dégâts contre les unités légères.
- L'amélioration drop pour les Vigilants nécessite un Terrier (T2)
Plutôt que de buff les Protoss, Blizzard pense que ce nerf des zerg permettra d'équilibrer le PvZ en début de partie.
Blizzard sur Community Feedback Update - April 8 (Source)
Map diversity
We wanted to point out something interesting that we noticed over the past week. We realized discussing standard maps vs. non standard maps might not be as important as discussing having a better ratio of new map types to proven map types.
Here are some examples:
1. Dusk Towers is considered to be very non-standard to us, but many people who were arguing for standard maps have the opposite opinion.
a. A map that a player can take 4 bases while defending 1 choke point doesn't feel standard to us.
b. Regardless of what label you prefer, we feel that it's a great map but we just don't want more than 1 map of this exact same type in the ladder pool.
2. Sejong Station is a map we also consider to be very non-standard, but many people who want standard maps look to be saying it's standard.
a. It's really difficult to protect your third, and the natural mineral line being super exposed by air harass are the non-standard parts of this map.
b. Again, labeling the map one way or the other doesn't seem to be helpful. The important thing is we know this type of layout is fun in SC2, and we can definitely use this map or maps like this map in the future. We just don't want to have more than 1 map of this type in the pool.
3. We completely agree maps like Ulrena produce really entertaining games even though it's non-standard (as seen from games in KR last season)
a. So there is room to explore new map types, but maybe we should do so in moderation going forward.
b. Again, we just don't want to have more than one map of this type in the map pool is the important thing here.
4. We completely agree on the points many bring up regarding some of the other non-standard maps that turned out to be quite bad.
a. Maps like: Klontas Mire or Daedalus Point.
b. There is also a chance that exploring new maps doesn't work out, in which case there's always the veto system. We can also make fixes to maps, and/or we can just simply remove them from the pool like we have done in the past.
c. We agree with many players that in Season 2, we may have pushed new map types a bit too far.
We can keep going, but even these examples show that the discussion may have been about the wrong thing. Due to the definition of a "standard map" not being consistent, maybe it'll be best to stop using these terms when describing what a good map is or isn't. When we say we want to push map diversity, the ultimate goal is that we want to avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool.
So instead of discussing if a map is standard or non-standard, we agree with much of your feedback in that the important factors are these two things:
1. A majority of the maps should be good maps that have low risk of breaking the game (Regardless if you define them as 'standard' or 'non-standard.)
a. Any map that the majority of players like can go into this category, but we're not going to have two Dusk Towers or two Overgrowth in different tilesets.
2. Only a few maps, at most, are exploring new ideas per season.
a. This number we could aim for can be maybe 1-3 per season at most.
b. We'd love to hear your thoughts on the exact number, and once we have decided together what the best move is, we can move forward with trying that for the next season.
c. This, we wonder, is where we didn't quite hit the mark on in Season 2, and we need to work towards setting a stronger baseline
In conclusion, we understand that the maps for this season might have introduced too much change all at once. We want to make sure to clear up any misconceptions that the design team dislikes unique maps such as Dusk Towers, and we would like to focus on the above two points for discussion going forward.
Map changes for next week
Let's now talk about actual changes we can make to the current map pool as early as next week. We would love to move fairly quickly on the changes so let's get focused discussions going over the weekend.
We have been testing out various suggestions and we have also been testing some of our ideas regarding the potential issues brought up, and here are the proposed changes:
Frozen Temple
- Reduce the size of the choke point leading into the natural expansion area
Invader
- Remove the "bridge" areas next to the third to help horizontal spawn positions.
Korhal Carnage Knockout
- Remove the Rock Towers at main base locations
- Reduce the main base ramps to the smallest size
Let's try to figure out if further changes are needed or if a map just can't work and needs to be replaced, so that we can make the best call for the current map pool.
Balance
Thank you for your feedback and discussion regarding the proposed changes in the current balance test map. We would like to move forward with some of the changes as soon as possible, and continue to test the other changes on a balance test map in order to move with balance changes in quicker, smaller steps.
Overlord transport upgrade requirement moved to Lair
We agree with the argument that this change will be more effective at strictly only buffing Protoss early game vs. Zerg, as compared to the Ravager nerf which nerfs Zerg against both races early on. We would like to get this into the game ASAP to see how the early game changes in PvZ in order to be able to see if further action is needed.
Banshee + Liberator
We believe bringing a bit more strength to the Banshee and taking away from the Liberator strength seems to be a solid way to go. Due to how much emphasis there is on Liberator strength, and the fun we're seeing with speed upgraded Banshees, we believe these changes will be good for the game. The changes would be the same as what we're testing currently in the balance test map, but we're thinking the cost of the Banshee upgrade should be reduced to 150/150 instead of 100/100 like it is on the test map.
If further changes are needed here, we believe changing the Liberator AA damage to be +Light instead of dealing full damage to everything, and further increasing the Banshee speed upgrade effectiveness could be a viable next step.
We have other changes we believe we should continue exploring in the balance test map, but we wanted to make a move on these 3 changes as soon as possible, if there is agreement in this area. Let's also aggressively discuss these proposed changes so that we can make a move in this area as soon as possible. Thanks!
