|
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. |
The "design a T unit" thread has several suggestions (including my own) of a bio (rax) "engineer" that would repair mech (spell and/or like an scv) and provide some building options (bunkers, turrets, walls) either via energy or build commands. Beyond that, I do agree that I'd rather see other units "fixed".
I actually had a non-unit (somewhat crazy) suggestion that I really don't know whether it could work or not, but I imagine that upgrades and different units shouldn't just make you X% better, but rather should reward different platstyles. And I thought about the bunker and how I actually don't like how it works currently. So I thought of these changes to promote a different bio playstyle:
- Each bunker cost 1 supply
- Bunker BT reduced to 10 seconds (after upgrade is finished)
- Bunker HP increased to 550-600.
The effect of this change would be to give bio play a strong defenders advantage after an engagement as they could build bunkers before the enemy could reach the base. This would add a bit more back-and-fourth play and would also match well with the new economy as the enemy would have several locations he could attack into. This would create a very different playstyle for bio play, and since they cost 1 supply you wouldn't be able to spam bunkers everywhere, but only use them in emergency situations.
|
WTF they nerfed the Tank? It has 2.8 attack speed? Are we supposed to mass Ciclones or something? Warhound 2.0
I've got to say, from a Terran perspective, it's not looking interesting.
EDIT: they were not nerfed, my bad.
|
On March 30 2015 20:54 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 20:34 Musicus wrote:On March 30 2015 20:00 Heyoka wrote:
START THE COUNTDOWN Countdown to the LotV subforum?  This reminds me I don't know if or when we're opening this. Suppose I should get on that.
Haha thanks, can't wait  .
|
On March 30 2015 20:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:
WTF they nerfed the Tank? It has 2.8 attack speed? Are we supposed to mass Ciclones or something? Warhound 2.0
I've got to say, from a Terran perspective, it's not looking interesting.
Tanks has had 2.8 attack cooldown for quite a while. (also 2.8 makes them better than attack cooldown of 3)
|
have they begun sending out invites yet?
|
On March 30 2015 21:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 20:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:
WTF they nerfed the Tank? It has 2.8 attack speed? Are we supposed to mass Ciclones or something? Warhound 2.0
I've got to say, from a Terran perspective, it's not looking interesting. Tanks has had 2.8 attack cooldown for quite a while. (also 2.8 makes them better than attack cooldown of 3)
ohh that's right. I was thinking of that proposed buff from 3.0 to 2.7 that turned to 2.8 in the live servers. My bad. Still think they need to be buffed in LOTV though. :p
|
On March 30 2015 21:16 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 21:09 Hider wrote:On March 30 2015 20:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:
WTF they nerfed the Tank? It has 2.8 attack speed? Are we supposed to mass Ciclones or something? Warhound 2.0
I've got to say, from a Terran perspective, it's not looking interesting. Tanks has had 2.8 attack cooldown for quite a while. (also 2.8 makes them better than attack cooldown of 3) ohh that's right. I was thinking of that proposed buff from 3.0 to 2.7 that turned to 2.8 in the live servers. My bad. Still think they need to be buffed in LOTV though. :p
They are indirectly buffed due to removal of HS. But they are actually roughly as efficient as their BW counterpart. Major difference is how much more immobile they are relatively given unit pathing, map changes, larva changes and mobility changes to enemy units. It's really no surprise that the only real way to play mech is to turtle given how immobile they are.
But ofc given the changes to the economy you could consider buffing their cost efficiency, but I would prefer that to be a late game thing. Stronger tanks in the midgame is just likely to stale the game too hard.
|
A big difference is also the increase in supply. You have fewer, so you want every one of them in the same place, turtle more. I'd rather have a supply and cost reduction and rebalance of the stats tbh.
|
On March 30 2015 21:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:
A big difference is also the increase in supply. You have fewer, so you want every one of them in the same place, turtle more. I'd rather have a supply and cost reduction and rebalance of the stats tbh.
No, exactly the opposite is going to happen. I said around 5 yrs, we need to increase the supply per unit in order to decrease the turtle style.
Another thing is the supply production/ per minute, a very turtle style with ~35 supply production per minute on midgame.
|
On March 30 2015 21:57 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 21:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:
A big difference is also the increase in supply. You have fewer, so you want every one of them in the same place, turtle more. I'd rather have a supply and cost reduction and rebalance of the stats tbh. No, exactly the opposite is going to happen. I said around 5 yrs, we need to increase the supply per unit in order to decrease the turtle style. Another thing is the supply production/ per minute, a very turtle style with ~35 supply production per minute on midgame.
Could you explain your thoughts on this? I am not quite sure how you come to this conclusion?
|
I think it means if you can only control 30 units you reach the supply cap faster and have to move out. It makes no sense to camp when sitting on max supply.
|
On March 30 2015 22:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 21:57 Dingodile wrote:On March 30 2015 21:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:
A big difference is also the increase in supply. You have fewer, so you want every one of them in the same place, turtle more. I'd rather have a supply and cost reduction and rebalance of the stats tbh. No, exactly the opposite is going to happen. I said around 5 yrs, we need to increase the supply per unit in order to decrease the turtle style. Another thing is the supply production/ per minute, a very turtle style with ~35 supply production per minute on midgame. Could you explain your thoughts on this? I am not quite sure how you come to this conclusion?
The logic is that if your maxed out faster, then there is no further reward for turtling, which forces the player to armytrade.
In reality, however, it's a ton more complicated than that.
Siege tanks can actually be 2 supply, but only if this is accodomated by a signifciant buff to its midgame harass opportunities (static defense must not completely shut down Hellions) + the enemy must have very strong tools to counter a turtling enemy player.
|
On March 30 2015 22:07 TurboMaN wrote:
I think it means if you can only control 30 units you reach the supply cap faster and have to move out. It makes no sense to camp when sitting on max supply.
That encourages turtling to fill your supply with the most efficient units... In fact, getting harrassed and losing some workers when approaching max is actually a good thing in that case.
|
On March 30 2015 22:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 22:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 30 2015 21:57 Dingodile wrote:On March 30 2015 21:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:
A big difference is also the increase in supply. You have fewer, so you want every one of them in the same place, turtle more. I'd rather have a supply and cost reduction and rebalance of the stats tbh. No, exactly the opposite is going to happen. I said around 5 yrs, we need to increase the supply per unit in order to decrease the turtle style. Another thing is the supply production/ per minute, a very turtle style with ~35 supply production per minute on midgame. Could you explain your thoughts on this? I am not quite sure how you come to this conclusion? The logic is that if your maxed out faster, then there is no further reward for turtling forces the player to armytrade. In reality, however, it's a ton more complicated than that. Siege tanks can actually be 2 supply, but only if this is accodomated by a signifciant buff to its midgame harass opportunities (static defense must not completley shut down Hellions) + the enemy must have very strong tools to counter a turtling enemy player.
Hm, i don't see it still.
If anything this means the turtling consumes less time, but i don't see why it would stop completely.
On March 30 2015 22:07 TurboMaN wrote:
I think it means if you can only control 30 units you reach the supply cap faster and have to move out. It makes no sense to camp when sitting on max supply.
People right now sit on max supply too. You can get a bank, more infrastructure, etc.
I doubt "more supply per unit" would change anything
|
If anything this means the turtling consumes less time, but i don't see why it would stop completely.
If your at 200 supply and the enemy is at 150 supply and both of you have similar economies, you - generally speaking - wanna attack as you wanna kill the enemy before his army strenght catches up to you.
|
On March 30 2015 21:09 theBALLS wrote:
have they begun sending out invites yet?
No, not to my knowledge. It's actually quite bizarre. The beta starts tomorrow and there are quite a few people like myself who even know their account is going to be flagged but it has not happened yet. My email was contacted by ESL for WCS placements and there are roughly 120 other people who need to be given access as they have already been notified by ESL as well. It's really weird considering the client is available to a few... the thing starts tomorrow... It's honestly kind of worrisome haha >.>
I assume they're just going to do it all at once on the 31st, though that is really odd considering we don't know what time it starts/how to dl client or really anything else at all yet..
|
On March 30 2015 22:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +If anything this means the turtling consumes less time, but i don't see why it would stop completely. If your at 200 supply and the enemy is at 150 supply and both of you have similar economies, you - generally speaking - wanna attack as you wanna kill the enemy before his army strenght catches up to you.
Yeah sure, i already know that
That's a general statement and doesn't tell me why it would be better to have, let's say, two times the supply for any unit.
I mean if the whole point here is to reduce the turtle time, sure this probably helps.
But in the end it doesn't matter how much supply you have, it's way more important to be able to trade/retreat efficiently for action to happen.
|
On March 30 2015 22:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +If anything this means the turtling consumes less time, but i don't see why it would stop completely. If your at 200 supply and the enemy is at 150 supply and both of you have similar economies, you - generally speaking - wanna attack as you wanna kill the enemy before his army strenght catches up to you.
But that's also the case for the current state. U attack, when u got the highest chance to win.
Turtling has more reasons. If u turtle u either wanna get the best army possible (not just 200 supply). Or when ur oppenent has also 200, u just save ressources and build up infrastructure/ larva to recover in an instant when the opponent has to slowly rebuild his army. Zerg and Protoss have the edge in this situation. That's why Terrans try to get rid of Scvs and have the bigger army supply.
Imo turtling cannot be simply prevented by playing with the supply numbers. There is much more needed.
|
On March 30 2015 22:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 22:16 Hider wrote:If anything this means the turtling consumes less time, but i don't see why it would stop completely. If your at 200 supply and the enemy is at 150 supply and both of you have similar economies, you - generally speaking - wanna attack as you wanna kill the enemy before his army strenght catches up to you. Yeah sure, i already know that That's a general statement and doesn't tell me why it would be better to have, let's say, two times the supply for any unit. I mean if the whole point here is to reduce the turtle time, sure this probably helps. But in the end it doesn't matter how much supply you have, it's way more important to be able to trade/retreat efficiently for action to happen.
Yeh exactly, that's why it's a flawed argument. However, there is a case to be made that relative supply difference does matter in terms of rewarding aggression, but it's more complicated than just saying higher supply cost of tanks --> mech is rewarded for not turtling.
Imo turtling cannot be simply prevented by playing with the supply numbers. There is much more needed.
Yeh, I was just trying to explain his argument.
|
Ah btw, where is Aeromi when you need him (schedule for the beta is missing!!!^^)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
