|
Thanks to Reddit sleuths, everyone can try the LotV test maps by following instructions here. Note: This is not a beta key, it is simply access to Vs. AI and a Unit Tester. I have no idea how cool with this Blizzard is or is not, use at your own risk. |
We shouldn't just look at units and their counter micro and judge if it has a place in the game or not.
phenoix opening doesn't offer a lot of counter micro but it is interesting because it allows protoss to have map control early on, force zerg to play blind.
First of all, your Phoenix example doesn't really fit into this context. When Phoenix pulls up a target in the air, it exposes itself to being attacked by Queens/Hydras/spores. Therefore it's not even in the same category as all of the "can't catch you"-units.
Secondly, I do agree that countermicro isn't the only factor to asses. However, look at my Cyclone suggestion: It actually promoted more synergy with the Hellion for early game harass purposes. If anything, it is strenghtening the intended role. The point here is that you can do both at once.
Moreover, think of the selling point here. Can you convince all the Starcraft players that went to Dota, CS, Heroes of the Storm and LOL to come back to Starcraft in order to "suffer" through bad-to-mediocre microinteractions because you want 1-2 new openings to be viable? My point here is that diversity must never be the goal in itself if it comes at the expense of less "fun" microinteractions.
|
Canada8160 Posts
Can't wait to get home and play again
|
Germany913 Posts
Played against him earlier today and got crushed pretty hard^^
At least I killed a few of his units with my cyclones :D
|
I guess noone gives a shit yet, but I wonder how big teamgame maps have to be with the new eco system where bases are mined out faster.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:04 Yrr wrote:
I guess noone gives a shit yet, but I wonder how big teamgame maps have to be with the new eco system where bases are mined out faster.
It will still play alright if you have half mined out bases (if you can have a couple each at a time especially)
they could even just have full minerals
|
they even nerfed zealots..
|
On April 01 2015 20:10 TT1 wrote:
they even nerfed zealots..
Legecy of the Void, the Zerg expansion we deserve  .
But seriously, how did they nerf zealots? Except the warpin.
|
On March 31 2015 20:47 y0su wrote:What makes a unit an "a-move" unit? (Assuming "normal" or "even" conditions) -Being able to give the attack command once and be done?
-Being able to give periodic commands without actually watching the unit? (selecting army and pressing stim, etc)
-Units that benefit slightly/significantly from simple move commands/repositioning? (Fanning out to concave, pulling back from the front line, moving past/into the army/surrounding, etc)
-Units that benefit slightly/significantly from complex movement commands? (Splitting, magic-box, stutter-stepping , etc)
-Units that benefit slightly/significantly from an additional ability? (Blink, burrow, detonate, land, boosters, etc)
-What if the unit is otherwise "an a-move unit" but gets a significant boost from drop micro?
Just curious what opinions are since this was being discussed a bit.
It depends on what you want the term to mean. Are you thinking of an evaluation model where you seek to judge the quality of a unit? I think the term is a bit too derogatory for that, normally you don't want to have such negative connotations with your evaluation models. You could say that there is a function of skill ~ strength for a unit, and if this function is more or less flat that this unit resists your attempt to micro it. At this point, insulting the unit by calling it an a-move unit might be appropriate, if not recommended in discussion. It also belies the real need for units that are effective even for weaker players and the fact that this term is too convenient for frustrated players that have just lost a game.
|
LotV is really breaking the metagame. Tefel is playing ling/bling/muta... :O
|
On April 01 2015 20:15 Musicus wrote:Legecy of the Void, the Zerg expansion we deserve . But seriously, how did they nerf zealots? Except the warpin.
the zerg expansion we deserve?! zergs already owned (W)Lings of Liberty...
|
On April 01 2015 20:49 KOtical wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 20:15 Musicus wrote:On April 01 2015 20:10 TT1 wrote:
they even nerfed zealots.. Legecy of the Void, the Zerg expansion we deserve . But seriously, how did they nerf zealots? Except the warpin. the zerg expansion we deserve?! zergs already owned (W)Lings of Liberty...
you don't want to get into this, especially since the facts are not on your side.
|
Ok i watched a little bit of destiny and huk, the ravager looks just as stupid as i imagined.
Blizzard pls change that unit -.-
|
On April 01 2015 20:54 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Ok i watched a little bit of destiny and huk, the ravager looks just as stupid as i imagined.
Blizzard pls change that unit -.-
The ravager is pretty broken at this point of the game. Same with the ultralisk.
However, I would rather see them nerf inject then zerg units and stop balancing the game around Zerg opponents building walls everywhere. The game is much more fun with standing army and harassment play in the game, rather than simcity+eco and then lose to tech switches that happen too fast if you aren't turtling.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:10 TT1 wrote:
they even nerfed zealots..
They adjusted the values to the new time but i dont think it's a straight nerf.
Zealots now are 1.61 and 1.96 with charge, adepts are 1.79, stalkers are 2.11. Completely different from live values.
|
If you nerf inject zerg can simply build more hatcheries.
The larva mechanic simply works that way, so you either change zerg completely (pls don't!^^) or you have to live with tech switches and fast remaxes.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On April 01 2015 21:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you nerf inject zerg can simply build more hatcheries.
The larva mechanic simply works that way, so you either change zerg completely (pls don't!^^) or you have to live with tech switches and fast remaxes.
Tech switches are a function of how hard units counter each other. They weren't as big of a deal in WoL in PvZ for example (before the days of ridicolous infestor/brood ofc), because blink/colossus/storm was actually decent vs everything with a few adjustments, while not really being great against anything other than awful idra-style roach hydra corruptor. That isn't the case in HotS where you need phoenix for mutas, immortals for ultras, colossi for swarm hosts, templars for vipers, etc etc
|
On April 01 2015 21:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you nerf inject zerg can simply build more hatcheries.
The larva mechanic simply works that way, so you either change zerg completely (pls don't!^^) or you have to live with tech switches and fast remaxes.
There would be a ton of implications to nerfing inject, even just from 4 to 3. First of, Zergs economy early wouldn't take off as easily. Pool first builds would be a little worse and contains (e.g. canons) on one base would be worse.
But that's all kind of like nerfing warpgate. Lots of small implications everywhere. The important part for those changes is that they are there right from the start in LotV, so that the game gets balanced around those (in)capabilities.
Now the big thing is that you would need to spend extra money on more production.
Important is that getting a queen to inject would still be massively superior to building a macro hatch, so the unit would be far from useless and you wouldn't reduce the skill needed to macro well with zerg (4.5larva/min for 150minerals-queens vs 4larva for 350minerals-hatchery with only 3larva/inject).
But you'd need to get like 2macro hatches on 3bases, compared to only one right now and - as I said - the whole economy build up would be a tiny bit slower for zerg.
Now you are right that the way larva works, there is always going to be techswitches. But taking money out of the game is one of the biggest hinderances for tech switches (it's the reason why Terran can only techswitch very late and even then does it kind of slowly - not that I need to tell you). Only if the game goes very stale does zerg even have the opportunity to build up a huge bank for techswitches and this would be fought if the game was a little more about army building instead of cheap walling and droning (aka units like the ravager that can punish turtling very early).
And even for lategame there could be solutions to make the techswitches of zerg less severe, e.g. maximum storage of larva per hatchery to 3+whatever one inject gives. (so 6 with my suggestion)
|
Well i guess this might be worth testing, the macro mechanics in generel could need some tweaks.
|
On April 01 2015 20:10 TT1 wrote:
they even nerfed zealots..
HOW?
|
On April 01 2015 21:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you nerf inject zerg can simply build more hatcheries.
The larva mechanic simply works that way, so you either change zerg completely (pls don't!^^) or you have to live with tech switches and fast remaxes.
Building more hatcheries is a slower and less cost-efficient way of getting production. There is a reason zerg has a ton more stuff in the midgame than in BW.
I am however of the opinion that it is easier to buff protoss in the midgame than adjusting the larva mechanic (which will have lots of unintended consequences).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
