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.
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
If the disruptor would die if it were not invulnerable, and the adept would be otherwise useless if it wasn't either, then the solution is better unit design, not invulnerability.
I don´t understand how Blizzard tries to add more anti-micro spells into the game. Stasis field sounds idiotic and the disco ball disruptor is gonna be fun to dodge for zerg especially when off from creep. FF, stasis field and time warp combined with disruptors, storms colossi and your army will just melt away. Please Blizzard don´t add spells just because it´s an expansion and new stuff is cool to have.
On March 20 2015 21:45 RaFox17 wrote: I don´t understand how Blizzard tries to add more anti-micro spells into the game. Stasis field sounds idiotic and the disco ball disruptor is gonna be fun to dodge for zerg especially when off from creep. FF, stasis field and time warp combined with disruptors, storms colossi and your army will just melt away. Please Blizzard don´t add spells just because it´s an expansion and new stuff is cool to have.
I have a feeling that you guys haven't seen a video or read anything about it.
First, Stasis Field is trap-like ability and it has casting time, you can't just fly in with 3 Oracles and freeze whole enemy army. Second, that "trap" can be destroyed before it activates, it is like Mine on the field that activates when you come near and unlike Widow Mine that can unburrow, this will activate even on one Zergling passing by. Third, you can't attack frozen units, they are invulnerable.
On March 20 2015 21:45 RaFox17 wrote: I don´t understand how Blizzard tries to add more anti-micro spells into the game. Stasis field sounds idiotic and the disco ball disruptor is gonna be fun to dodge for zerg especially when off from creep. FF, stasis field and time warp combined with disruptors, storms colossi and your army will just melt away. Please Blizzard don´t add spells just because it´s an expansion and new stuff is cool to have.
Technically stasis is taken from the Arbiter, isn't it? (don't take me wrong, I agree with you) Reworked to be a mine and to be shorter(Liquipedia states approximately 40s).
Just return the arbiter, for god sake. Remove mothership and rework the early game around some unit, which cannot be warped in.
Return Amulet to a Templars who are not warped in from Warpgate.
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
Brood War storm had a delay and attack animation. It also didn't have smart cast and nobody in their right mind would call it useless in a pro game. EMP also has a small delay in sc2, its still usefeull.
Let's not be intellectually dishonest here. A very fast projectile for EMP or fungal growth or a small cast delay for psionic storm in BW (a game where moving groups of units takes a while) is obviously different from the intended example, which would be something like psionic storm in SC2 with a 1 second lag between animation and damage ticks.
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
If the disruptor would die if it were not invulnerable, and the adept would be otherwise useless if it wasn't either, then the solution is better unit design, not invulnerability.
Perhaps, but my point is that Blizzard probably did put some thought into the design and that invulnerability is not simply tacked on because of laziness but because it makes it easier to get the ability to work. And well, I think that an invulnerable adept image still offers plenty of counterplay (you can kill the adepts or surround the images) and it's somewhat pointless to state that invulnerability is bad per se. Without more thorough analysis you can't really say whether the invulnerability is crucial to make the adept work.
On March 20 2015 19:03 deacon.frost wrote: Another question - stasis ward applies for ground unit only? In the hype video it was used against Hydras, but damn this could be cool against Mutalisks
yeah, I bet you are getting all hard just thinking about running a Templar there trying to unleash your stormy passion all over my defenseless mut-muts
...What?
On March 20 2015 19:24 Nyast wrote:
On March 20 2015 09:22 chipmonklord17 wrote:
On March 20 2015 08:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On March 20 2015 08:55 chipmonklord17 wrote: Have they talked about whether the battlecruiser ability would require you to cast it for each individual bc or if you could control + click a group and select a point to warp them all to? If its individual (meaning you need to click a new location for each bc) I can't help but feel like the ability will be near useless. Though if you can warp all at once I think it would be awesome to use with ravens. Spend a few PDDs to keep them safe during the teleport and then warp them all to one location
The problem with BC warp will be, even if executed ... what will the BCs accomplish once they warp in? They are still hard countered by Vikings / Voids / Stalkers / Corrupters. And if you warp in 50 supply of BCs without the rest of you army, they will fare just as badly. Maybe you can warp out and let the rest of your army (Ravens / Vikings) die. If the warp in costs more than Yamato, then a huge portion of the utility of the BC goes away when you use that warp in. And you also cant use warp in to quickly reinforce newly built BCs (which would be the best thing you could possibly do with this ability).
I'm talking about something more akin to mamma core + a few voidrays come in and snipe a base. Except instead of recall you use a PDD and warp out. Worst case you trade a raven for whatever you get, best case you trade energy.
On March 20 2015 09:05 ZAiNs wrote:
On March 20 2015 09:01 Ramiz1989 wrote:
On March 20 2015 08:56 ZAiNs wrote:
On March 20 2015 08:43 Elentos wrote: Can we stop complaining about the invincible nydus worm already? When reacted to appropriately, it's not going to do more than it does currently and it's still going to die a horrible death.
The concern is about Nydus all-ins mainly against Protoss who barely have anything out when Nydus hits; and the players in that video weren't taking it seriously at all >_>.
Yes but for that to happen you need to: -miss the Nydus Network in the Zerg's base when scouting -miss the Overlord giving vision to the Zerg player at the edge of your base -miss the Nydus Worm emerging inside of your base for 20 seconds
If all of that happens, I might as well kill you with Overlord drops.
How are you meant to kill the Nydus Worm when you opened Forge expand and have a Zealot, Stalker and MSc? I think the worker change could change the timings so you just about have enough if your units stay at home and don't wander off on the map.
Don't open forge expand. If its a case of balance it will be fixed, but if its a case of "muh build won't work anymore" then LotV will have a bunch of new openers
It's true in theory, but if a quick forge isn't viable anymore, then how does toss punish a Zerg that goes fast 3 hatch before pool ? Or even 2 hatch before pool, while getting stuck on a standard 1 gate expand ? Then playing behind in eco from the rest of the game...
So yeah I'm not saying you're wrong, it's too early to tell, but I certainly hope that on the flipside, greedy Zerg builds can be punished.
I guess San-gate? *shrug*
I want toss to be able to macro. What kills this race is that ( due to a lot of design choices ) we're kindda forced into all-ins in a lot of situations. If nydus at early timings can't be addressed by a macro build in LotV, don't complain that toss are always doing all-ins. Give us options..
You're theorycrafting pretty hard in your previous posts. I am sure that forge expand will still be a very viable option in LOTV. If not, a new opener will come about. And are you saying that Protoss macro is too slow/easy/boring and you wish there was more to do or are you saying Protoss has no ability to play a macro game? Because I certainly disagree that Protoss can't play a macro game. Protoss all-ins are strong, that's why people go for them, not because Protoss has no ability to play late game.
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
Good points, I understand. What I don't understand is why would you design new abilities or units that require guaranteed damage or invulnerability of the units in the first place. It's fine to have few of those and we already have some (like you mentioned, for example storm).
So, I'm buying your defense for such kind of spells/units, but I strongly believe SC2 does not need more of those, it's lacking in other areas, imo. But I'm open to discussion.
The main issue I have with the disruptor is that it seems to be a major all-or-nothing unit. Either your disruptors hit and do massive damage, or they miss and get taken out instantly. And if they do hit they'll probably be taken out anyway since they have to be in point-blank range to do anything. They don't really seem to be a worthy investment outside of an all-in strat, and there's already too many of those as it is.
I suppose a lot of it depends on how much synergy they have with sentries, which honestly kinda worries me. Disruptors would be great in a sentry heavy army, but force fields are already an annoying spell because of its anti-micro component. Imagine how much worse it can be when not only is your army split out of position, but that they also get blown up before they can even run away and regroup. It definitely reeks of a potential deathball unit, but I'll wait and see.
On March 20 2015 22:46 Spawkuring wrote: The main issue I have with the disruptor is that it seems to be a major all-or-nothing unit. Either your disruptors hit and do massive damage, or they miss and get taken out instantly. And if they do hit they'll probably be taken out anyway since they have to be in point-blank range to do anything. They don't really seem to be a worthy investment outside of an all-in strat, and there's already too many of those as it is.
I suppose a lot of it depends on how much synergy they have with sentries, which honestly kinda worries me. Disruptors would be great in a sentry heavy army, but force fields are already an annoying spell because of its anti-micro component. Imagine how much worse it can be when not only is your army split out of position, but that they also get blown up before they can even run away and regroup. It definitely reeks of a potential deathball unit, but I'll wait and see.
I imagine the Disruptor will not be your initiator. You'd probably chargelot into an army and try and force the army into a more favorable location with the disruptor. If the army refuses to move then the Disruptor gets it's damage in. Sure if you just activate the disruptor bio will just stim/split and kill it and it did no damage but you've got to be smarter about it's use than that.
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
Good points, I understand. What I don't understand is why would you design new abilities or units that require guaranteed damage or invulnerability of the units in the first place. It's fine to have few of those and we already have some (like you mentioned, for example storm).
So, I'm buying your defense for such kind of spells/units, but I strongly believe SC2 does not need more of those, it's lacking in other areas, imo. But I'm open to discussion.
Well, I think that it's quite difficult to design for Starcraft 2 compared to Brood War because of the fundamentals. So in BW you had limited unit selection and no smartcast, therefore abilities would typically scale well with player skill. This doesn't exist in SC2 so you don't have any safeguards in place. The pathfinding difference plays a role too, it's well known that anything which deals area damage in this game is more difficult to balance because units stack so much. There are other reasons too, but these two are the main ones.
When everything is more fluid and responsive and easier to control, you very quickly have abilities which (for a given skill level) are either too strong or too weak and if you try to rebalance them you simply shift the problems to players of different skill levels. So if you're Blizzard you have to apply tools like guaranteed damage and temporary invulnerability to narrow down the uses of abilities and make them play out more similar to the intended design. I'm not saying it's good or bad, and maybe it's annoying design, but it's also true that Blizzard operates under certain limitations and maybe it's not a good idea to be against these sort of ability designs per se because you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
There are a lot of changes that I like in LotV but the ‘Stasis Ward’ sounds really overpowered even if the units can't be damaged while in stasis you could still position your colosi or high templar perfectly and kill the army once the Stasis is over. I don't think that adding another spell that destroys micro (the other is timewarp) should be added to the protoss army.
Also now that the protoss army has a new core gateway unit can they please remove the mothership core. Or at least photon overcharge. This 1 click no skill defense is a joke and should be removed. Maybe give the mothershipcore a different ability. Or let it place mines or something. I totally understand that it was necessary in HOTS to keep the protoss save in the early game but this question should be addressed now.
And yes plus one for sience vessel. Or a totally new unit for Terran.
Love the Zerg Changes so far. Not a fan of the new viper ability. I think there should be more anti air units for Zerg but the viper ability does not feel right. Same goes for the Tempest.
Irradiate should do friendly fire and Stasis Trap should Stasis friendly units in the radius as well after being triggered by an opponent. Otherwise: Irradiate on Viper looks completely broken in like every circumstance I can think about, from irradiating Colossi to Medivacs it will do much more than what they intend. Stasis Trap protected by your own army sounds like a vroken fuck as well against zerg. You can destroy forcefields with ravagers, but how are you going to get rid of your own stasised army wall protecting the immortal allin?
God, can they for once not add another stun/slow to the game please?
God I so wanna play it, I love disruptor and stasis makes oracle a much better all rounded unit I am tempted to switch to protoss just for all the changes
On March 20 2015 19:12 Everlong wrote: What I really don't like is that to me it seems like they are introducing lots of units/mechanics that have very little to no counter-play.
Nydus - invulnerable. Adept - shadow is invulnerable. Disrupter - can go invulnerable. Viper - casts spell that guarantees damage Tempest - casts spell that guarantees damage
This is what gets me worried, because I believe most of the new stuff has potential to be abused to an absurd level, ultimately causing more gimmicky gameplay.
Again, I understand you can micro against those new units/mechanics to some degree, but imo, they should go the other direction. That would be adding more simple, rts-like, basic stuff that would promote macro over micro.
I'm excited about LotV anyways, can't wait for beta to start.
There's a difference between being able to outplay your opponent to avoid the damage and learning a trick to be able to always avoid / nullify an ability independent of the skill level of your opponent. If you go to the other extreme, i.e. always being able to deal damage, then clearly that's more acceptable because it at least gives the ability a reason for existing. So that's why guaranteed damage exists and is often a safe design choice, it allows you to get at least some use out of it.
Psionic storm is a good example. Some people say that there should be a second delay to the spell with some graphic to warn you, but clearly that leads to storm being useless at high levels except for zoning. This is going into a mindset more reminiscent of playing vs AI where you can learn its behavior and eventually familiarize yourself sufficiently with it to the point it ceases to be a threat.
Let's look at the mechanics you mentioned: If the disruptor was not invulnerable then it would always die before dealing serious damage, unless you tweaked the stats to the point that it would become a baneling. If the viper spell did not deal guaranteed damage you would simply spread out your air units and it would be a waste of gas spent on your viper, but now it forces the death of at least one air unit. The tempest deals guaranteed damage, but it has to risk itself to cast the ability and if it was too easy to outheal or avoid the spell then trying to cast disintegration would be a pointless suicide mission unless again they tweaked the stats to make it much higher range. And the adept would just be useless in most situations (still some uses though) if you could immediately snipe the images.
Good points, I understand. What I don't understand is why would you design new abilities or units that require guaranteed damage or invulnerability of the units in the first place. It's fine to have few of those and we already have some (like you mentioned, for example storm).
So, I'm buying your defense for such kind of spells/units, but I strongly believe SC2 does not need more of those, it's lacking in other areas, imo. But I'm open to discussion.
Well, I think that it's quite difficult to design for Starcraft 2 compared to Brood War because of the fundamentals. So in BW you had limited unit selection and no smartcast, therefore abilities would typically scale well with player skill. This doesn't exist in SC2 so you don't have any safeguards in place. The pathfinding difference plays a role too, it's well known that anything which deals area damage in this game is more difficult to balance because units stack so much. There are other reasons too, but these two are the main ones.
When everything is more fluid and responsive and easier to control, you very quickly have abilities which (for a given skill level) are either too strong or too weak and if you try to rebalance them you simply shift the problems to players of different skill levels. So if you're Blizzard you have to apply tools like guaranteed damage and temporary invulnerability to narrow down the uses of abilities and make them play out more similar to the intended design. I'm not saying it's good or bad, and maybe it's annoying design, but it's also true that Blizzard operates under certain limitations and maybe it's not a good idea to be against these sort of ability designs per se because you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
I can't say what you say is wrong. It is a different game and so different rules apply when creating new units and abilities. That makes perfect sense.
I think that by this time, Blizzard should be able to predict what and how units/abilities could be abused (abusing in my eyes = bl/infestor pre nerf, sh/static defense vs ravens, archon toilet, etc...).
Lets try to elaborate a bit more then.
For example, I understand they want Zerg to have something to deal with mass air. Why would you not try to tweak some numbers before giving potentially overpowered spell to already versatile and viable unit. I think this Parasitic Bomb is fairly close to what Fungal Growth was before it's nerf. Both spells come from spellcasters, deal AoE, are hard to micro against. The main difference is that Parasitic Bomb affects air units only and instead of chaining it, you would apply more of those at the same time, making it basically impossible to micro against (similarly to Fungal Growth's stun). It seems to me like they haven't learnt their lesson, or am I completely off here?
I wonder if a better way to deal with mass air would be to give Corruptors another mutation option (or maybe just an upgrade, dunno) which gives their attacks air-to-air bounce attack not unlike Muta glaives. Or possibly just make it so their air attack is given a small AOE like Thor.
On March 20 2015 23:05 Big J wrote: Irradiate should do friendly fire and Stasis Trap should Stasis friendly units in the radius as well after being triggered by an opponent. Otherwise: Irradiate on Viper looks completely broken in like every circumstance I can think about, from irradiating Colossi to Medivacs it will do much more than what they intend. Stasis Trap protected by your own army sounds like a vroken fuck as well against zerg. You can destroy forcefields with ravagers, but how are you going to get rid of your own stasised army wall protecting the immortal allin?
God, can they for once not add another stun/slow to the game please?
Of course it has to - Bombing your own medevac in Bomber style with Raven is possible, why not to use other skills the same way If you are dumb and walking across stasis mine field, it should bite you as the WM bites terran
On March 20 2015 22:26 Grumbels wrote:Perhaps, but my point is that Blizzard probably did put some thought into the design and that invulnerability is not simply tacked on because of laziness but because it makes it easier to get the ability to work. And well, I think that an invulnerable adept image still offers plenty of counterplay (you can kill the adepts or surround the images) and it's somewhat pointless to state that invulnerability is bad per se. Without more thorough analysis you can't really say whether the invulnerability is crucial to make the adept work.
I don't doubt that Blizzard puts thought into everything it does, nor do I think that invulnerability is the result of laziness. I think it's quite clearly the result of bad unit design. The minute invulnerability is suggested should be the same minute everyone in the room realizes that something is fundamentally wrong with the unit. Invulnerability *is* bad per-se, unless it can be counter-played, in which case it isn't invulnerability necessarily. There should be no point in which any unit in the game is completely invulnerable.
Take an existing unit as an example: would you be alright if window mines were invulnerable at the point they started burrowing until after they fired? No, that would be stupid. If your only options are to (1) stop it before it happens or (2) run, then something is wrong.
EPT
