"Once again, why would the damage be buffed to the DA when the Hammer is obviously much faster than it?"
Because Hammer currently has the same damage as Troika. Hammer is obviously much faster than Troika as well, but here we are.
"Once again, why would the damage be buffed to the DA when the Hammer is obviously much faster than it?"
Because Hammer currently has the same damage as Troika. Hammer is obviously much faster than Troika as well, but here we are.
So another question is "how much damage boost do you think OOO would give to Hammer when they apply this nerf?"
How about a mean of Combuster and Divine Avenger damage?
when I said "two first swings" and "three first swings", I meant doing the first hit of the combo... three times. Since you can triple cancel the Hammer's first hit, or even use the 1-1-3 combo, it does more damage than DA with or without the nerf/buff/change/whateveryou'regoingtocallit
@Waffle: did you just say to give the dash death marking powers?
well they are not going to just take away the dash damage so it might as well work as an armor shredder, that way you can't just smash through something with the first swing and dash, now you have to hit it with the final swing if you want to kill it.
Now obviously it won't be an actual death mark, but it can AT MOST cause a 50% armor reduction for the rocket hammer, not the 2 star or 3. The 2 star should be able to get up to maybe 20% and the 3 star 35%.
Polaris, also know as the trollaris by many skolvers( thos who uses skolver+striker+flourish combo in PVP ). As a non PvPer, i strongly protest the nerf. I rekon polaris should stay as the way it is without any buff or nerf.
AoE-in my past 1 years of playing SK, polaris has helped cheat death hundreds of time, i have spectated LD alot of times ( killing time watching u guys fight ) and from what i can see, trolaris is not OP at all, yes, sure it has good AoE, but the bullet needs to expand before becomming a nuisense. Any skolver can beat a trolaris user by simply stay in CQC or otherwise forcing the trolaris user into a sword fight. Chaos+trolaris how ever, i do agree that chaos needs to be nerfed but polaris is okay the way it is, mercurial demo suit and any decent shock UV on a skolver coat should reduce the shock effect to minimum, spasm is sure bad, but not as bad as being cursed, stunned or BBQed.(seriously, why isn't anyone complianing about GF, it is OP too u know)
In PvE, polaris is not all that OP either, it is a great weapon against a cluster of slow moving enemies, so RJP FSC farming is covered, but GW and RT(quicksilver) are not. Sure the gun can chew through a formation of undead, construct or jellies. But it doesn't have any answer to gremlin, devilites and beasts. So that is half of the monster race got covered by trolaris, the other half however, the knights have to look elsewhere.
Personally, polaris is the love of my life, no sword, no bomb nor bombs can replace her place in my heart. She light up the darkness and guide me in the ever lasting shadow of the clockworks, it helps me engage enemy in long range( until they forced my to go personal, CIV chain charge GO! and stay alive as long as I can, many time have I soloed manors and graveyards with that bad girl, or standing tall when all my friends are down for the count ( if they complain, i then stop using polaris for a while, so i rekon it is fair ) without polaris, i wouldn't have stayed for this game for long, pumping blaster round into jellies in RJP is the most painstaking task of all time. And as for swords, i have an one bar latency so that is out of the question (so is LD), still though, i carry my CIV...
midnight, polaris kills devilites pretty well. you have a 50% chance to hit them with 2 shots: one gets dodged, and one has the 50% chance. I had some problems when they had full tracking, but now I can stay almost flawless against 4-5 devilites.
@Midnight
Guess what: 90% of bombers felt that way about shards, but OOO changed it. They didn't give a decapitated snipe about the uproar caused.
Also: Yes, Pulsars are OP. I can hit lock Seerus at long range using it, so it's almost as bad for him as DR is for RJP. And you have to agree it's more disruptive than Levi-spin-spam because you don't have to charge it up and Levi-spin-spam is risky in a few cases.
Any skolver can beat a trolaris user by simply stay in CQC or otherwise forcing the trolaris user into a sword fight
Can three skolvers beat three trollaris users at a choke point?
In PvE, polaris is not all that OP either, it is a great weapon against a cluster of slow moving enemies
With a polaris/supernova in hand, I can play most of the game with just one hand. I can't do that with any other weapon.
@Midnight: Polaris, as well as most of the other weapons mentioned here, are not inherently overpowered so much as far too effective for the amount of skill required to use them. In other words, they're too spammable and spam is too good in this game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w
NOTE: I'm not arguing, just opening up your mind.
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/7/18/a-discussion-of-balance.html
"I have posted and spoken many times about those exact two issues, so I agree. But there is then some strange leap lof logic happens. The problem of how "solved" parts of those games can feel at times is claimed to be BECAUSE they are well-balanced. The problems involved are actually 0% because the games are well-balanced. Well-balanceness is a wonderful property and should not be blamed for these problems."
"Making a bunch of unfair matches intentionally is just a poor man's solution to the problem of strategic variety. In the end, that poor man's solution constrains your strategic choices anyway, rather than opens them up. You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters. Having a set of characters who ALL have fair matches and who ALL have a lot of strategy options makes you wonder what the point of intentionally having unfair matchups ever was in the first place."
I've linked that video multiple times; SK falls under the category of games that don't do it right.
@Zeddy
The problem with all 100% fair matchups is, as mentioned in the video, stagnation of the metagame. In practice, players don't actually come up with many new strategies if one becomes dominant - they just lose, over and over again.
I don't get how making the dominant strategy even stronger helps with that.
You don't make the dominat start stronger, you initially balance the game in a way that one thing is slightly, like >15%, better than the rest so that it will become the dominant strategy initially, yet stay within the realm of reason so that it can be beaten by a smart player who comes up with something new. Then that becomes dominant, then something else, then something else. It's a way to get the cycle started. In SK's case, it was initally too imbalanced - the dominant strategy is the combination of effective and easy that makes learning anything else not worth the effort, so the dominant strategy stays dominant. Only now are we getting a little bit of fluctuation with the Chaos buff, but having only two things be good isn't really enough.
blitz: 1b
flourish: 1 and 4
rocket hammer: 5
most of my problem with rocket hammer is that the dash does multiple hits. other than that i actually enjoy fighting a good hammer user.
polaris: 2 and 6. i've learned to mentally tune out polaris shots, but reworking the graphics might help reduce it's lag, so i guess i'm for 5 as well.
1. apply to supernova, no matter what the changes might be.
brandish: 1. don't go overboard, but it does need a little something...
chaos: 1c. for sure this much.
If anything other than 1c happens, then it needs 4a or 4b.
i actually don't like putting a stun weakness on it just because using chaos taught me not to be surprised by anything. i expect the worst. and with all the other stats taking so long, fast reaction time and movement is key to staying alive at all.
i actually don't like putting a stun weakness on it just because using chaos taught me not to be surprised by anything. i expect the worst. and with all the other stats taking so long, fast reaction time and movement is key to staying alive at all.
Just to let you know, magic cloak lines used to all have a stun weakness not too long ago.
If you are mad about overpowered weapons, just use them aswell! But seriously, Blitz Needle's charge attack is WAY to overpowered to vana.. It's about 253dmg per round in a single charge attack o.O
You're contradicting yourself. First you say:
"In practice, players don't actually come up with many new strategies if one becomes dominant."
and then you say:
"You don't make the dominat start stronger, you initially balance the game in a way that one thing is slightly, like >15%, better than the rest so that it will become the dominant strategy initially, yet stay within the realm of reason so that it can be beaten by a smart player who comes up with something new."
You made a dominant strategy, and you expect people to come up with counters for it. But you just said people don't bother with that, but for some reason they will if the dominant strategy you made is strong enough somehow? I don't get how this works.
The trick is to find the balancing point so that only a few creative players coming up with something new can shift the entire meta in a new direction. Take SCII as an example - not necessarily in perfect imbalance, but certainly not 100% balanced. If a strategy or race becomes dominant for a short time because of a particular strategy, the community and playerbase as a whole will generally be slow to find a widespread counter to it, if they do at all. Instead, it is the pro players who display new strategies at live tournaments where everyone can see them who have the power to change the metagame - because they can say "here is the dominant strategy, here is how to beat it."
Unless, as was the case just before the expansion launched, one strategy becomes overly dominant. This came in the form of the Broodlord/Infestor playstyle. Zerg players were dominating, beating all the other races left and rigg at every tournament. No one could find a solution, and the dominant strategy stayed dominant for several months before Blizzard introduced several changes with the expansion to even the playing field - because it had become evident that one strategy was actually overpowered. This is the case in SK - one (now two) playstyle(s) has dominated for over a year, because of a brutal combination of low difficulty, relative safety and accessibility, and extreme effectiveness.
The optimal balance would be a state where all logical(and many illogical) strategies would be equal in both viability and ease of use, but one is made SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY SLIGTLY more powerful than the others - probably not the one that is predicted to be the most popular, which is probably the one that is most DPS focused. That will prevent a situation where everyone flocks to one playstyle, which will promote a variation in strategy as no one way is the best.
This would also be improved on the PvP side of things with an actual competitive scene or way to spectate past games, so people have something to look at for new ideas other than whatever random people happen to be playing right now for you to watch in spectator mode. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to see it I don't think it's the kind of thing OOO is interested in pursuing.
@Hex - wasn't this thread supposed to be made to AVOID arguments?
@Hex - wasn't this thread supposed to be made to AVOID arguments?
Nope. It was meant to keep most overpowered/overused weapon discussion in one place, as mentioned at the start of the OP, and especially to discover what the community agrees is the best course of action to take.
Argue away!
Your first paragraph says how Starcraft II is balanced and that is a good thing.
Your second paragraph says how at some point the game was imbalanced and that was a bad thing.
Your third paragraph states all the advantages of having a balanced game that offers a variety of tactics, but you also say that the game should be slightly imbalanced without giving any reason for it at all.
@zeddy
The reason a game should be imbalanced when it has a large variety of styles is so lets say style A is best when going agents a style B and style G, but style A is the worst when facing a C style or E. This is done so yes, you can have a wonderful snow ball style game with one strategy but a terrible, down hill ride with the same one in a different setting.
It also puts presure on the player to know at least 2 different ways to play the game in order to be able to win.
Think of it like the damage type system, shadow is best vs slimes and gremlins but is terrible vs undead and devlites.
That damage type system is balanced, with no one element being stronger than another except for situationally.
I did actually say the reason; it's both to prevent initial favoring of one strategy and to set the changing metagame cycle of different strategies rising and falling out of favor in motion. It works because it creates the balance of players necessary to spread a trend of beating something considered "imbalanced".
Nerf Blitz: +1
Nerf Flourish: It has already been nerfed, boo! -1
Nerf Hammer: It has already been nerfed, boo! -1
Nerf Polaris: +1
Nerf Brandish: +1
Nerf Chaos: Lower defence and status. +1
Nerf Hammer: It has already been nerfed, boo! -1
Source plz.
WAHY NOAT SUMPLY MUEK DAH DAUSH SHREDDD ARMOR UNSTEAD OF DEAL DERMAG SUO IT IS A UTITL-E TU MAKE DHA LAHST HIT DO MORE DAMAGE AND FUUTER HUTS?