great post. even though its sort of the exact opposite of my post i think while i pointed out why wc3 can be hostile towards new comers.
you did a great job of pointing out what blizzard is doing right now can and seemingly is hostile towards current players.
its like damned if you do damned if you don’t situation.
Which is mostly what it is: Human beings tend to lash out at what they think they can have control over, so it’s inevitable the company that made a business model out of post-launch support has been hearing it from their fans for a very long time.
But nowadays, if a company does nothing, they hear it from the players who think the game is “broken”, or you do everything, and hear it from the individuals who want the game to settle down. When if you didn’t have the internet, there would be nothing to complain about because the game is set in stone and it is time to grind your teeth and “GIT GUD”.
But Blizzard has now set the precedent that they are willing and capable of taking a videogame made well before the modern world of never-ending patches and applying it to a piece of software launched in 2004, so they reap what they sow.
It’s probably far more complicated than all of this, however, because in order to get the game to work on the Blizzard Battlenet App Launcher: Presented by Battlenet, a Subsidiary of Blizzard, they would have probably needed to go into the game code, anyway. But they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble by simply adding the game to the platform and leaving it at that.
But it’s their choice, their rules, their diction, their timeline. I politely respect their reign of terror.
It doesn’t matter.
It feels like you are trying to lure me into some sect. Explanations have already been given. Just read everything to get the answer.
Not a fact, just your value judgment.
STAYING ON 1.30
The answers are inconsistent, and I’m looking for clarity.
From my observation it looks like you don’t like peas because they are green and yucky while saying brussel sprouts (also commonly green and yucky) are okay. I don’t understand your definition of ‘green and yucky’, since it should be applicable to both but you are treating one differently than the other. If it were a case of opinion, I would openly accept that, because I understand everyone has different tastes. What I don’t understand is how you are evaluating Peas as green and yucky without addressing the Brussel Sprouts on the same plate.
The strongest example so far I have is with you seeing Tier 2 Tauren Totems as acceptable change. Original design had Tauren Totem built after reaching T3. Tauren were originally available only after T3 AND a Totem was built, while 1.30 Taurens are available earlier than Bear Druids (which require a T3 upgrade). Balance-wise, we can consider this a good change, because Taurens weren’t seeing much play.
Yet when we look at Spiked Barricades, you considered this a bad change because it doesn’t require Tier 3. Why is this considered Iconic design, but the Tauren being a ‘T3.5’ unit not also be considered Iconic?
What I’m looking for is clarity on your statement about Iconic Design, and a clear explanation how 1.31 has deviated from it design differently than any other patch. All these changes started with 1.29, and we have even greater examples of change during the 5 years of TFT balancing. Where does the term ‘Iconic Design’ fit in when the game has always been in a state of change?
I simply don’t understand why something like Sundering Blades would be considered bad when it is a parallel to other T3 passive DPS upgrades like Archer Marksmanship, Ghoul Frenzy and Tauren Pulverize. What is the difference here in Iconic Design? Simply because it feels too weak and niche? Because that does not answer how it is a different Iconic Design than Archers simply getting a DPS boost through Marksmanship; also a passive that could be ‘at a Blacksmith’.
But it clearly does because something’s planted in your mind to stick to the idea of 1.30 being the premier patch.
Tauren are still available only after T3 and the Tauren Totem has been built.
STAYING ON 1.30
Why is Tauren Totem moved to Tier 2 an acceptable change? Why is Tauren Totem at Tier 3 not considered Iconic Design?
If they moved the Chimera Roost or Boneyard to Tier 2, you would not mind the change?
Tauren Totem moved to T2 is an acceptable change cuz Tauren Totem now includes Spirit Walkers (it is strange that I have to explain this at all), and I have already explained why I consider this to be a good change.
I am tired already to repeat that I basically am not against design changes as long as they bring more sense to the game.
STAYING ON 1.30
isn’t it weird how death coil is slated to deal damage to living units and heal allied undead units but it also works on Pit Lords but they aren’t undead, they’re demons
It has been a change?.. Otherwise it is off topic.
STAYING ON 1.30
But it doesn’t make sense and you’re debating for more sense in game design. Demons aren’t undead. Fel magic is different from necrotic magic.
off topic
STAYING ON 1.30
I am tired already to repeat that I basically am not against design changes as long as they bring more sense to the game.
So why Sundering Blades?
Your explanation was ‘too similar to Blacksmith upgrade’ and ‘Does it improve the balance?’
First part - Archers have T3 Marksmanship upgrade that only adds passive damage. Same as a Blacksmith upgrade. Does nothing else. Sundering Blade is an upgrade similar to this.
Second part - Yes, it has function to help counter MG and kill Fiends with movespeed. Being against Medium Armor means Knights aren’t just buffed to be better at everything, they have a very specific goal and that is good. They don’t kill Bears faster, the don’t kill Grunts and Tauren faster. This is is a beneficial change.
But you see it as not making sense. So I personally think that is lack of understanding why it’s been added for balance. Same for Spiked Barricade change, I think there’s a lack of understanding on why it’s moved to T2 and why taking it off T3 would be considered a ‘senseless change’. It’s better for Orc defense, why would that be a bad change?
Necromancer, Ritual Dagger and Orb of Fire are the ones I will agree with. I simply don’t know why you think the rest make no sense, because your answers were more about ‘I don’t see the reason’ without really making an effort to explain why.
You say you aren’t against change but you give no room to accept any 1.31 changes, even if they help balance. I don’t understand that reasoning. Have you played 1.31 and found that Knights Sundering Blades is a senseless addition? I don’t think so because you aren’t even willing to test it, you just made a judgement call based on what you think of the numbers. You even question it rather than find out if it helps balance or not, so I don’t think that is the same as ‘not against design change’. You are against them without testing them, and I don’t understand why.
But earlier in the thread you yourself are posting about how concepts should fit the game’s design. So are you saying on post #8, you went off-topic yourself because you were talking about that stuff? Not to mention this part from post #20.
Your logic is definitely not compatible with mine. It is like to say that there is no sense in my desire to have more money in my wallet cuz there were not enough money in it at the moment I obtained the wallet. And no, we are not debating for more sense in game design, we are debating about inadmissible game changes.
I didn’t went off-topic, I was talking about reasons of inadmissibility of some changes. Can you find word “changes” in this quote from post #20 (actually it is from #21) you mention?..
Looks like you are just trolling me.
STAYING ON 1.30
He is a Blizzard troll you know that kind,ignore him and the topic will feel alot better
They should probably do separate balancing like they did for SC2. Campaing and MP are two different things. Or introduce game settings Legacy and Reforged which would switch the game balance between old and new values and mechanics.
Archers have no Blacksmith upgrades, they have Hunter’s Hall upgrades. But well, I got your point and ready to admit that Sundering Blades upgrade might be not so bad, although IMO situation with Marksmanship upgrade is a little bit better cuz Sundering Blades upgrade has “blades” that is pretty much the same as “swords” in the Blacksmith upgrades, which also only add passive damage. Another thing is that Knights now demand even more time to be maxed, but that is completely balance matter.
Because I don’t like the idea of been able to max base defense without reaching T3. IMO it doesn’t fit in main game conception. If approve this, then why not to do same modification to HU Masonry upgrades?..
1.31 has many very welcome changes, but some 1.31 changes cannot be accepted by me, I don’t play online, so I can afford myself to stay on 1.30. Actually, if 1.31 didn’t have good changes, I would have zero motivation to make a thread about how did they spoil the patch. There is no need of going to a rubbish dump to realize that smell is not good there. I already know that if I go on 1.31, I will regret.
STAYING ON 1.30
Because homogenization makes for boring design.
This is good. We are getting somewhere, because your explanation is making it much more clear for me to understand where your perspective comes from and what you are looking for in terms of design.
I agree that from a perspective of a non-online gamer who is reading the 1.31 changes, they are pretty drastic. It does sound like a lot of change that is needless or senseless, especially if you do not play online. And if you have the choice to stay with a patch of your choice, that’s all fine.
That being said, much of what you are saying also tells me it’s less a problem of design and more an issue of feeling uncomfortable off of a bad impression of patch notes.
As I said earlier, I don’t even play WC3 right now but I do watch Grubby play and sometimes some tournament casts. I follow enough to know how the game is balanced and dig into commentary to find out what works and what doesn’t. So far, I have heard little complaint over Sundering or Spiked Barricades, which is why i was so curious why you would suddenly bring them up as design issues. That is my perspective coming into this thread.
Well if it’s down to not liking 1.31 because it changes too much from your perspective, I’m totally fine with you sticking to what you feel is right. I’m not here to convince you 1.31 is any better for you, I just wanted to clarify where your position was from, especially when talking about balance or design.