Bombshell Turtling - Balancing Suggestion

Promicide · 10-07-2012, 07:14 PM

Map balancing is an issue on some maps and has been identified in a lot of threads (along with the very old topic of FTA).

vivafringe-
I agree with the point you made. Add, don't take away from the game is a pretty good guideline for further balancing and development. I like that way of thinking. Add to the other races to bring up to par.

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 10-07-2012 07:34 PM by CombatEX.)

(10-07-2012 07:14 PM)Promicide Wrote: Map balancing is an issue on some maps and has been identified in a lot of threads (along with the very old topic of FTA).

1. Where? It's unfortunate that I've been here for 5 months and these mysterious discussions that have been identified in a lot of threads have proven so elusive (also, why are we bring up FTA here?)
2. But anyway, even if that is the case, so what? My point is we should be considering map balancing here as a way of balancing* specials. It's funny because by your line of reasoning I can just say, oh, why are we talking about turtling here? It's been discussed in plenty of threads elsewhere... well, because the point is to talk about it in the context of this thread, hence why I think we should be talking about map balancing here as an alternative to unit nerf (or buff).

*but of course we don't even know the specials need balancing in the first place because we don't have match-up stats

Promicide · 10-07-2012, 07:53 PM

(10-07-2012 07:23 PM)CombatEX Wrote:
(10-07-2012 07:14 PM)Promicide Wrote: Map balancing is an issue on some maps and has been identified in a lot of threads (along with the very old topic of FTA).

1. Where? It's unfortunate that I've been here for 5 months and these mysterious discussions that have been identified in a lot of threads have proven so elusive (also, why are we bring up FTA here?)
2. But anyway, even if that is the case, so what? My point is we should be considering map balancing here as a way of balancing* specials. It's funny because by your line of reasoning I can just say, oh, why are we talking about turtling here? It's been discussed in plenty of threads elsewhere... well, because the point is to talk about it in the context of this thread, hence why I think we should be talking about map balancing here as an alternative to unit nerf (or buff).

*but of course we don't even know the specials need balancing in the first place because we don't have match-up stats

I have seen it brought up in a few threads. I'm not going sifting through as that isn't the purpose of the thread. I don't think you really expected me to anyways lol. Your right, i didn't consider the mathematics based on turtle and Unbalanced maps and apologize for the oversight. I do however disagree with the idea that fixing those maps would effectively address the overlaying issues some have with turtling. If i saw a problem with something, i wouldn't want it fixed in "just some instances". I only mention FTA as that it is closely related to the said unbalanced maps, at least in my opinion.

I second the demands for special related statistics!! That would give us an awesome "diagnosing" tool to see where the problems truly lie.

Ravernoth · (This post was last modified: 10-07-2012 10:09 PM by Ravernoth.)

(10-07-2012 03:21 PM)vivafringe Wrote: Bombshells play great (as a defensive player I find them super fun), and bombshell vs. bombshell fights are easily the deepest, most fun thing about the game for me. So I would much rather buff the other races than mess around with bombshell itself.

(10-07-2012 10:36 AM)Butternut22 Wrote: I think what should happen is that a bombshell can only attack if it directly hits a target. This way, it cannot fire at a hex with no unit on it three hexes away and do splash damage right behind it. The only way it would be able to attack is to directly hit a unit. Would this work maybe?

This is a monster nerf and would make the race really bad.

Yes good point, this targeting change or the "1 unit limit" change would reduce the fun of using bombshells, and we don't want that.

My reasoning with a 2 wit attack is that it most cases it would only be an adjustment of 1 wit per shot, so usually 3-6 wits spread out over the course of a match.

Bombshell play would remain much the same, and it would not affect bombshell v bombshell battles much.

(Edit: Having said that, it might make it too costly for whittling away enemy hitpoints, so perhaps it would affect bombshell play too much. An alternative would be to keep the 1 wit cost, but reduce the direct hit damage to 2.)

(10-07-2012 07:06 PM)CombatEX Wrote: I agree with vivafringe. I really like the way the bombshell currently works and it makes SvS an interesting matchup in its current state. If the bombshell really is 'too good' as it is, then I'd rather have the other specials buff. Ultimately though, why isn't anyone commenting on map balancing?

Why comment on all these arbitrary fixes when we don't even have the stats to backup the idea that the bombshell is 'OP' overall? As Syvan pointed out, different specials will be better than others on a map by map basis. Balancing the maps would be a much better approach than trying to adjust stats on the specials. Why? Because changing the bombshell stats will make it worse on all maps. This may make it more even on certain maps, but it could also make it subpar on others. Rather than adjusting the stats, just adjust the map pool.

Balance maps based on match-up statistics instead of arbitrary unit nerfs hoping to solve some unverified problem.

(10-07-2012 08:54 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: Adorables and Feedback, if they do hold an advantage on large maps, don't hold it to the same degree.

Speculation. Where are your stats? You don't have any. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as harsh, but really, I just don't like the idea of claiming things are too good or too bad without stats. Probably this is a result of my experience with SC2. There is so much whining about Terran OP, Protoss OP, Zerg OP, etc. But when it comes down to it, the stats show the game is very nearly balanced (sc2statistics). Sometimes the meta will shift towards a certain team for a while, but then the slightly disadvantaged race will figure out how to counter it.

So, what do we need before balance changes?

1. STATS. Speculation without anything concrete to back it up is what ruins battle.net forums, youtube comments on sc2 videos, sc2 stream chats, ingame chat, etc. Pretty much half of the discussion involving SC2. Whine whine whine with nothing to back it up.
2. TIME. Even if the stats favor one race (or team in Outwitters), give players of the disadvantaged race some time to develop a proper counter. If, after a sufficient amount of time has passed, no counter is devised, then we can discuss how to fix the issue.

But stats first, then some period of time if stats confirm there is indeed an issue.

Fair points Combatex. No whining intended Smile

I've got nothing against bombshells myself - I like the unit, but I thought that there was general agreement among STs that an adjustment was needed, however from the responses so far it seems I may have been mistaken.

I would agree with waiting for more evidence that balancing is needed.

Re: map balancing, I'm not sure OML has the resources to do this for each unit and map. There are 6 maps now, and there will be 8 soon, and 4 special units. Plus since the bombshell is an area control unit, I'm not sure what you can do to a small map to help balance things when it's the size itself that's the problem.

Alvendor · (This post was last modified: 10-08-2012 03:37 AM by Alvendor.)

So we all agree on that the bombshell is at least kind of balanced on the larger maps. On the smaller maps most players think it is overpowered and I think all high level players can agree that it is at least easier to play well with.

I don't think more statistics at the moment would really tell us anything we don't already know as:
* When FTA is fixed it will change the matchup percentages significantly
* If statistics showed that bombshells win 70% of the time on a map among super titans it isn't that bad if it is 70% along all ST skill levels. Heck, I would be happy with the balance if I knew that the worst matchup on the worst map was 70/30% among the very best players.

I have the hardest time as P2 vs a competent scullywags player on Peekaboo. It literally feels like running into a (soldier)wall. When FTA is fixed it will be a lot easier on all of the maps for P2 to take out a bombshell that is placed fairly in the middle map so let's ignore those instances. Instead, take when the opponent places it as far back as possible on the map forcing you to either go through it or the spawn point to reach his base.

This is the problem I think: on small maps the opponent can force you to go through the bombshell and it trades superior to the other races in a heads on fight. Changing the maps would be one alternative, I'm just afraid we would loose some of the flavor. Currently I really like how each map has a different feel to it.

It would be great if the specials are balanced so they trade fairly equal in a heads on fight with a wall of units in front of each. It would make more map formations possible. Don't think it will be easy to do though!

(10-07-2012 07:19 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: I suggest splitting the Bombshell's attack into two:

Initial direct attack (1 wit) - deals 2 damage to one hex

Second splash attack (1 wit) - deals 1 damage to one hex and all adjacent hexes. Has to be the same target as the first attack.

So in effect it would take 2 wits to recreate the Bombshell's current attack

I kind of like this idea. It wouldn't do too much difference on the larger maps as it is fired so seldom there. It would make it viable to move up soldiers in splash range of it. The bombshell would need to splash two units to trade equal or better in wits.

My guess would be that it would move the bombshell from the strongest, if averaging all the small maps, to a slight underdog.

Another option would be to remove the siege armor thing and bump the health to 2.

A scrambler would have a fair chance to trade with it.

A mobi player would be able to teleport snipe it without using a runner. So that would make it a few wits cheaper to kill. Not sure if that would be too much of an advantage?

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 10-08-2012 06:53 AM by CombatEX.)

Glad you didn't take it personally Ravernoth. =) I will say that I do like your idea the best (2 wits for the attack) out of all the changes proposed as this doesn't change the flavor of the bombshell (which I quite like how it is), just the efficiency. But yes, as you conceded, we really should wait for more evidence that a change is truly needed before making one. ^^

I think Alvendor brings up many good points. I still think ultimately map balancing (or a map editor for players to create balanced maps to take the burden of OML after an initial investment of making it) would be the best step towards making Outwitters a more balanced and competitive game. However, I likewise understand that this initial investment is a time consuming one. Well, hopefully in the far future. If we look at SC2 we can see just how useful the map editor has been. In fact, even better, look at SC:Brood War. Blizzard maps were terrible for the most part and I don't hesitate to say SC:BW wouldn't have been half as competitive without dedicated Korean map-making teams who created hundred of highly balanced and interesting maps to play on. But again, OML unfortunately doesn't have the resources of a company like Blizzard.

Changing a unit both improves balance on some maps but worsens it on others for a questionable net gain.
Changing a map can only improve balance on that particular map assuming the balance is done correctly.

Making a unit change affects all maps, even maps that are already balanced, and as a result can worsen balance on some maps even if it improves balance on others. That's why specific map balance changes are ultimately better for balancing.

Going with this idea that OML balancing maps or outsourcing map balancing to the player base is likely not viable at the moment, team match-ups will likewise never be balanced (especially with a fourth team on the way, three teams is hard enough =P). However, in this case we need to consider what Alvendor brought up which is that even something like 30/70 across various maps would be okay (really I'd like something more like 40/60 which is still pretty bad by SC2 standards).

Poorly worded example of this issue >.<
Unfortunately, if bombshells are really that much better on small maps, nerfing them on say peekaboo where the have a 80/20* win-rate would also make them worse on a map like sweetie plains where they have a 40/60* win-rate. Then, after the change, they would be more balanced on peekaboo, but will also be less balanced as they will be more underpowered on sweetie plains. Again, these stats are just made up, but the point is there. The game probably isn't very balanced between maps so nerfing or buffing teams may improve balance in one area while worsening it in another. I think we're a long way off from making beneficial balance changes as in order to do so we need proper map and match-up data, and then either a map editor or careful consideration of how to improve balance overall since every change will inherently have both a component of worsening and betterment. In order to make a beneficial change we therefore need to have data. To go with this however is Alvendor's point that the P2 8 wit change will play a huge role in the stats, so ultimately we should wait until after the next patch goes live before revisiting this topic.

*making this up as an example, it's not really like this