| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
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. | ||
|
Aeromi
France14462 Posts
On March 30 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ah btw, where is Aeromi when you need him (schedule for the beta is missing!!!^^) We don't need to know the schedule for the beta though. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
The main thing that will happen if you lower the supply cap is that players will be annoyed they're reaching the cap so quickly. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 30 2015 23:57 Aeromi wrote: We don't need to know the schedule for the beta though. To know when we'll see the first beta streams^^ | ||
|
lohdon
170 Posts
On March 30 2015 23:48 Hider wrote: With reagards to working seperately. The main issue isn't how they scale, but rather that both zerg and terran can split up their units and then retreat if one of the groups gets outnumbered. Toss can't really do that. Say you go Stalker and Collosus and split them into two groups. Ok the Stalkers can retreat, but the Collosus can't, so if the neemy just attacks the Collosus with his main army, your fucked. This is why I am a big proponent of increasing the overall mobility of protoss and getting rid of the AA vulnerability of Collosus (they needs to be redesigned FYI). Let's be real. This is not an issue it's a test of skill that is something that makes the Protoss matchups fun to watch. Protoss has already a lot of very mobile units like Phoenix, Oracles and blink Stalkers. A Unit like the collosus being vulnerable when split from the main army is actually good design and not a problem. The collosus is a dull unit but it's actually much less of an issue in the current meta game and it may be even more redundant to change it with LOTV. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
| ||
|
RogerShah
Netherlands131 Posts
I have confirmed in my battle.net profile settings to be initerested in testing beta stuff. Do I have a slight chance? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
i.e. a unit that makes sense to add to your army in the final stages of crafting your composition to deal its superior damage, but which can not stand on its own. I can't think of a good way to make this design work for a game like Starcraft 2. It fits Supreme Commander, which is a game that plays out on a bigger scale and where an army is like a basic unit; that's a framework for which strongly synergistic units can work out. Starcraft is based on smaller groups interacting with each other, an army is not a basic unit but a collection of groups that should be able to function independently lest you be forced into inflexible death ball-esque compositions. If colossi can not do this then they should be redesigned or phased out (and to be honest I feel the same way about the sentry and the SC2 siege tank, among other units). | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On March 30 2015 22:57 Tenks wrote: Was Terran really given anything to help out with tank drops TvT? It is already pretty popular to follow up your opening gambit with doom dropping the Terran main with like 3-4 tanks and a bunch of marines. The strategy works because you can SCV pull the main to overwhelm the tanks so it doesn't make the drop free because it resets their tank count (and if they didn't do enough army damage you can just immediately counter attack and win.) I'm not sure how Terran will deal with it. Maybe lock Cyclones onto the Medivacs and do the same? Cyclones shit on pretty much everything including tank drops. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On March 30 2015 23:48 Hider wrote: With reagards to working seperately. The main issue isn't how they scale, but rather that both zerg and terran can split up their units and then retreat if one of the groups gets outnumbered. Toss can't really do that. Say you go Stalker and Collosus and split them into two groups. Ok the Stalkers can retreat, but the Collosus can't, so if the neemy just attacks the Collosus with his main army, your fucked. This is why I am a big proponent of increasing the overall mobility of protoss and getting rid of the AA vulnerability of Collosus (they needs to be redesigned FYI). I think you meant to put IMO instead of FYI. | ||
|
Aeromi
France14462 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:03 OtherWorld wrote: To know when we'll see the first beta streams^^ As soon as possible which means April 1st.  | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
The Disruptor is tbh more similar to the Reaver, and therefore the Collosus can't be like that (too overlapping). With the Collosus I would like to see this - not as this tier 3 giant deathball late game unit. But rather as a bit of the counterpart to the Immortal. The Immortal = Good vs armored. Collosus = Good vs light. Blizzards job should be to make the Colossus feel different from the Disruptor while promoting alot more micro and make it less of a unit that creates stale gameplay. Starcraft is based on smaller groups interacting with each other, an army is not a basic unit but a collection of groups that should be able to function independently lest you be forced into inflexible death ball-esque compositions. If colossi can not do this then they should be redesigned or phased out (and to be honest I feel the same way about the sentry and the SC2 siege tank, among other units). I think the Warp Prism needs a significant role for protoss. When you get outnumbered and Collosus can't escape by them self --> Pick them up. This means that it doesn't become a dead neccesity to pick a fight with Collosus when you have less than critical mass. But as long as the AA vulnerability exists, the enemy will always have hardcounters to the Warp Prism. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:15 opisska wrote: I just thought about the sieged tank drops and came to the conclusion that it has the potential to ruin the greatest art that ever existed in SC2, that is marine-tank TvT. Granted, Blizzard has been doing everything possible for quite some time to prevent the game from even reaching that stage, but when it ever happens, positional marine-tank play can be pretty awesome. But this play is based on the fact that your tanks cannot move while sieged, which will no longer be the case ... You can still only pick up and drop 1 tank at a time. It isn't much different than unsieging and repositioning the tank. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:21 Hider wrote: The Disruptor is tbh more similar to the Reaver, and therefore th Collosus can't be like that (way too overlapping). With the Collosus I would like to see this - not as this tier 3 giant deathball late game unit. But rather as a bit of the counterpart to the Immortal. The Immortal = Good vs armored. Collosus = Good vs light. Blizzards job should be to make the Colossus feel different from the Disruptor while promoting alot more micro and make it less of a unit that creates stale gameplay. If two Colossi fire at the same spot right now, I guess the damage from their lasers adds up? Wouldn't deleting that promote the use of Colossi less as a unit that you can never have enough of and more as a pure support unit, ie having 2 or 3 of them is good but having 4+ becomes less efficient? | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote: If two Colossi fire at the same spot right now, I guess the damage from their lasers adds up? Wouldn't deleting that promote the use of Colossi less as a unit that you can never have enough of and more as a pure support unit, ie having 2 or 3 of them is good but having 4+ becomes less efficient? I don't really understand your example, but the main reason why you prefer to turtle (or all in) with the Collosus is that they become useless without enough protection. Regardless of what small tweaks you do here, this isn't something that can be changed through small balance adjustments. Generally speaking, there are different ways a unit can be designed without promoting turtly gameplay. (1) It's positionally strong (e.g. BW Siege tank and Lurker) (2) It's mobile enough to move out on the map and escape when outnumbered (3) It has very strong synergy with the Warp Prism/something that can make it escape. For the Immortal I prefer the second solution and for the Collosus I would like to see the 3rd solution (this requires removal of AA vulnerability amongst other changes). | ||
|
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
On March 30 2015 22:51 darkness wrote: Typical morons from Blizzard.. they're too busy making money out of WoW, Hearthstone and whatever else. What happened to their passion for StarCraft? Inform yourselves people before you say such things.. On March 30 2015 06:34 Ramiz1989 wrote: | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:25 Tenks wrote: You can still only pick up and drop 1 tank at a time. It isn't much different than unsieging and repositioning the tank. isnt much difference?, unsieging and repositioning took like 15 seconds and you where vulnerable. With drop ship it takes like 2-3 seconds | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:56 SuperYo1000 wrote: isnt much difference?, unsieging and repositioning took like 15 seconds and you where vulnerable. With drop ship it takes like 2-3 seconds If E, rclick, shift D took you 15 seconds you may have bigger issues | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Jaedong
YSC vs hero
SC Evo League
ByuN vs Classic
Cure vs Solar
IPSL
Dragon vs Ret
RSL Revival
Solar vs Rogue
Maru vs NightMare
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
