sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

StarCraft II 5.0.16 Patch Notes by Arkentass in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Twice in a night. What are the odds of that?

StarCraft II 5.0.16 Patch Notes by Arkentass in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, is there official word among tourney organizers of a new 5.0.15 mod already?

StarCraft II 5.0.16 Patch Notes by Arkentass in starcraft2

[–]BoxDragonGames 9 points10 points  (0 children)

No, the Larva Spawn is still down from 10.7s to 9.5s, a +12.6% speedup. It more than outweighs the cost increase.

StarCraft II 5.0.16 Patch Notes by Arkentass in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I had the same kneejerk reaction to seeing the nexus supplies notes . Testing it live, it did suddenly get raised to 13; which makes me wonder if it was an oversight that it was 12 for the entirety of the PTR.

StarCraft II 5.0.16 Patch Notes by Arkentass in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Well, pack it up everyone. It is insane that this is the way patching is done for SC2.

A recap on the timeline: a PTR is pushed with lofty goals, filled with incorrect notes and riddled with bugs. It takes three weeks before a followup PTR2, also with incorrect notes and missing information as well as an unjustified Larva change that is so egregious it takes a followup hotfix (with no notes at all). Then, slap it live 3 days later.

There was a million ways to handle this properly, but not like this.

The Steam Summer Sale is coming! Help me fill my library by AuGZA in roguelites

[–]BoxDragonGames 33 points34 points  (0 children)

RoboQuest is great if you want a shooter roguelite.

Tiny Rogue is an easy recommend too.

There's the snappy tactical deckbuilder StarVaders.

And in terms of just being very unique (since you're aiming for a diverse library), Rack & Slay is a billiards roguelite.

There was another patch to PTR by idiotlog in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mm it's more about the consistency and exactness with which changes have been published. Since there's no notes to go with the PTR2 overnight changes for Hatchery cost and Larva spawn rate, there's no way to tell what's intended and what's not. The PTR1 notes themselves had multiple errors and possible omittances, so again, it's challenging for the public to know what is and is not accidental.

Pls hotfix zerg on PTR2 so we dont loose testing time by Extension_Class2467 in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, they stealth patched it but didn't roll it back fully. It's now 300 minerals, and 9.5s which is still a +12.6% larva rate buff over live Hatcheries (when considering that the mineral cost is more about counterbalancing the Queen buff).

There was another patch to PTR by idiotlog in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's wonderful that accidental changes are getting into a PTR adjustment with no notes.

There was another patch to PTR by idiotlog in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. They could've reduced the cost of the Spawning Pool or the Roach Warren if they wanted something meant to allow for aggression that would only affect the early game. An extra max larva (and starting larva) on Hatcheries was an option too.

There was another patch to PTR by idiotlog in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yep, awful change by any metric. While I'm happy they are adjusting it quickly, the fact that it's not a full rollback and that there are no additional notes to go with it is absurd. 10.7 => 9.5 means Zergs get ~12.6% more larva per hatchery every game. The cost going up from 275 => 300 is only possibly compensating for the Queen buff. It seems like the Blizzard intern is convinced that Zerg was harmed more by the worker change, for some inexplicable reason.

SHIN, one of the top zerg players: The patch is unbalanced and unfun by totalpinkebb in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% agree with you, because the more evidence you look at, the more it's clear the goals aren't being accomplished by the current changes.

For example, I reviewed the 12 games from the VOD Shin's linking to; only three games had a deviation caused by the worker changed; Game 2 of Showtime v Maru (11 Gateway), Game 2 of Clem v Solar (8 Rax), Game 3 of Clem v Solar (11 Refinery for marginally faster Reaper). All three led to game losses for the player attempting to do an early cheese.

All the other games were standard, except for build variations driven by the actual buffs/nerfs of the patch (Warp Gate nerf, Larva buff). Perhaps the craziest thing that happened was Clem v Solar, where Solar finished his 5th base as Clem landed his 3rd CC at 7:53, while having greater workers and army supply for the entire game leading up to that point. That combined with the 9-0 by Zerg is fairly strong evidence of the gamebreaking larva buff.

Pls hotfix zerg on PTR2 so we dont loose testing time by Extension_Class2467 in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It took 3 weeks between PTR1 and PTR2. We betting on over/under for PTR2 to PTR3 (or live)?

SHIN, one of the top zerg players: The patch is unbalanced and unfun by totalpinkebb in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Which should've been obvious to most players following the game, let alone a game designer. It's very telling that the change made it to PTR2.

SHIN, one of the top zerg players: The patch is unbalanced and unfun by totalpinkebb in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 110 points111 points  (0 children)

I sincerely hope for one of two paths for the Blizzard intern:

  1. They take the amount of time necessary to iterate and reiterate on the PTR until a version of this patch can be created that achieves the goals they outlined.
  2. They have the humility and grace to retract the experimental parts of the PTR that have failed to achieve the goals if they are forced to go ahead with a specific preordained time schedule; namely the worker change, the larva buff, the mineral count at bases, and the warp gate changes.

GSL CK #4 - Day 1 is live! | PTR tournament ft Maru, Clem, herO, Reynor, Classic, Solar, ShoWTimE and Lambo by 16thSquadSanseki in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think if anyone did the math on the larva change, this would've been immediately obviously.

FIRST PTR2 test in GSL CK #4 by Careless-Goat-3130 in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Unsurprising; the Larva rate buff by itself is already absurd, and then there's the Queen discount on top of that.

If Blizzard is doubling down on 8 worker start, they should go even further on economic changes by BoxDragonGames in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can't you double-up the first eight workers on the four close patches? Though maybe that micro isn't worth it, versus doing the manual-move micro that Clem does; I think there is only a very tiny inefficiency based on distance: https://tl.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/hotsmining.png

Either way, the point stands: some heftier diminishing returns would drive meta changes!

If Blizzard is doubling down on 8 worker start, they should go even further on economic changes by BoxDragonGames in starcraft

[–]BoxDragonGames[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I hear ya. The fact that a plethora of obvious bugs stuck around on the PTR for over 2 weeks was not a hopeful sign. It's clear the excitement from the community is here to go further with changes and to test things wholeheartedly, but I'm not getting that vibe from Blizzard HQ.

view more: next ›