|
On April 05 2015 04:21 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 04:05 KingAlphard wrote:On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place. I think you treat them more or less like widow mines, you bait the activation with a small unit and you're good to go You can turn off the autocast though, but you can destroy them anyway if you have detection. I wouldn't be surprised if they become a problem because you can turn off activation and protect them with your own units so you activate them just when mass of enemy units commit to take them down.
You can turn off the autocast?!?!?!?!?!??! brb making Terran/Zerg tears
|
Colossi damage nerfed, finally!
|
On April 05 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 04:21 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 04:05 KingAlphard wrote:On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place. I think you treat them more or less like widow mines, you bait the activation with a small unit and you're good to go You can turn off the autocast though, but you can destroy them anyway if you have detection. I wouldn't be surprised if they become a problem because you can turn off activation and protect them with your own units so you activate them just when mass of enemy units commit to take them down. You can turn off the autocast?!?!?!?!?!??! brb making Terran/Zerg tears
They affect workers as well. I guess you can slip a few near the minerals of someones 3rd, or 4th, turn off auto cast and wait for a workers transfer. Enjoy losing 30 seconds of mining time.
|
On April 05 2015 10:35 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 05 2015 04:21 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 04:05 KingAlphard wrote:On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place. I think you treat them more or less like widow mines, you bait the activation with a small unit and you're good to go You can turn off the autocast though, but you can destroy them anyway if you have detection. I wouldn't be surprised if they become a problem because you can turn off activation and protect them with your own units so you activate them just when mass of enemy units commit to take them down. You can turn off the autocast?!?!?!?!?!??! brb making Terran/Zerg tears They affect workers as well. I guess you can slip a few near the minerals of someones 3rd, or 4th, turn off auto cast and wait for a workers transfer. Enjoy losing 30 seconds of mining time.
Almost like the original Oracle's "non-lethal" worker harass
|
On April 05 2015 10:37 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 10:35 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 05 2015 04:21 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 04:05 KingAlphard wrote:On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place. I think you treat them more or less like widow mines, you bait the activation with a small unit and you're good to go You can turn off the autocast though, but you can destroy them anyway if you have detection. I wouldn't be surprised if they become a problem because you can turn off activation and protect them with your own units so you activate them just when mass of enemy units commit to take them down. You can turn off the autocast?!?!?!?!?!??! brb making Terran/Zerg tears They affect workers as well. I guess you can slip a few near the minerals of someones 3rd, or 4th, turn off auto cast and wait for a workers transfer. Enjoy losing 30 seconds of mining time. Almost like the original Oracle's "non-lethal" worker harass
another cool part (if anyone watched rifkin and pengwin playing archon mode) is that you if you have vision you can see when the SW wears off and time it up with something like a disruptor drop - kind of a poortoss' archon toilet...
(also putting a SW in between the middle patches usually catches almost all mineral workers at a base!)
|
SW is currently a little bit too good imo, you can place a lot in many location too easily.
but the potential is there :D
|
On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place.
They're amazing for defense, or at least stalling armies from killing expansions. Something Protoss desperately needs right now, and with Carriers being legit late game units, doesn't make Stargate a dead tech path in PvT after your first Oracle or two.
On April 05 2015 10:35 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 05 2015 04:21 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 04:05 KingAlphard wrote:On April 05 2015 03:53 royalroadweed wrote:On April 05 2015 03:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 05 2015 03:28 royalroadweed wrote:
Are stasis wards permanent until they activate? Yes, you can destroy them before activation though. Anyone with the beta used them? Thats seems way too strong if they're permanent and oracles don't have a limit in how many they can place. I think you treat them more or less like widow mines, you bait the activation with a small unit and you're good to go You can turn off the autocast though, but you can destroy them anyway if you have detection. I wouldn't be surprised if they become a problem because you can turn off activation and protect them with your own units so you activate them just when mass of enemy units commit to take them down. You can turn off the autocast?!?!?!?!?!??! brb making Terran/Zerg tears They affect workers as well. I guess you can slip a few near the minerals of someones 3rd, or 4th, turn off auto cast and wait for a workers transfer. Enjoy losing 30 seconds of mining time.
Yep, I knew they affected workers and lasted 30 seconds. SW was one of the first things I tried in a PvT match, just didn't realize you could turn off autocast.
|
On April 05 2015 13:08 ETisME wrote:
SW is currently a little bit too good imo, you can place a lot in many location too easily.
but the potential is there :D
just hotkey an overseer with your army and walk around your side of the map, theyre not hard to clear.. once protoss opens oracle you have plenty of time to clear the wards because there most likely wont be a followup push from protoss (the only followup is a gate unit timing/allin)
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Hmm, played a bit w/ the Cyclone in the editor. The below stats felt like they rewarded the most countermicro and the highest skillcap;
- Movement speed: 3.25 (from 2.8 I believe)
- Lock on range = 6 (unchanged)
- Maximum range = 9 (from 14 I believe).
- Cooldown = 5 seconds (I guess its probably close to 10 seconds on the actual beta)
Overall, it become an extreme micro intensive unit where you constantly had to get in range to lock and then abuse the slightly faster movement speed to get out of range again. But if the Cyclone got further away than 9 range, the cyclone would stop attacking. So a good player would respond quickly and micro away the targgeted unit.
That's a huge buff for actual combat. Outranging, out-dpsing and outrunning pretty much every unit counter is just a bad idea.
|
On April 05 2015 14:04 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 13:08 ETisME wrote:
SW is currently a little bit too good imo, you can place a lot in many location too easily.
but the potential is there :D just hotkey an overseer with your army and walk around your side of the map, theyre not hard to clear.. once protoss opens oracle you have plenty of time to clear the wards because there most likely wont be a followup push from protoss (the only followup is a gate unit timing/allin)
I am not talking about method of removing the wards.
I think it is huk who likes to open three oracles and the rate of placing wards is pretty crazy
|
On April 05 2015 14:10 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Hmm, played a bit w/ the Cyclone in the editor. The below stats felt like they rewarded the most countermicro and the highest skillcap;
- Movement speed: 3.25 (from 2.8 I believe)
- Lock on range = 6 (unchanged)
- Maximum range = 9 (from 14 I believe).
- Cooldown = 5 seconds (I guess its probably close to 10 seconds on the actual beta)
Overall, it become an extreme micro intensive unit where you constantly had to get in range to lock and then abuse the slightly faster movement speed to get out of range again. But if the Cyclone got further away than 9 range, the cyclone would stop attacking. So a good player would respond quickly and micro away the targgeted unit. That's a huge buff for actual combat. Outranging, out-dpsing and outrunning pretty much every unit counter is just a bad idea.
The reason the Cyclone is currently broken is due to its insane maximum range that removes countermicro. Depending on how much you reduce the max range, the movement speed can actually be buffed somewhat. If you instead opted for like 11 maximum range you would probably maintain the current movement speed.
Remember, it also needs 6 range to lock on to a target, and in LOTV the upgrade increases this range to 9. While I forgot to mention it, in the test map where I tried it, I also reduced the upgrade to +2 from +3.
So this becomes a unit that is always very close to the battle and constantly in danger zone. It definitely needs a faster movement speed with the other stat changes suggested.
I get the feeling you didn't spent much time thining about the consequences on the interaction before you wrote that one-liner.
|
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech. Normal mech had no antiair, carriers could surprise, counter to carrier was a ground unit which introduced terrain dependency and micro.
In SC2 there is no interaction like that, counters to carriers are mainly air units which is terrain independent and boring. It's really sad when protoss sits on his bases and mass air and eventually game ends up with air battle. It's so bad. Huge land battles with lower tech units, micro dependant and terrain dependant, is what should be the main goal for design.
If they can't come up with interesting unit interaction, carrier being at side lines is actually good choice. Or come up with an idea so making 1-3 is good, and more is bad.
|
I would think the cyclone kills everything quickly enough that there is little counter micro available regardless. Maybe this would be another unit that would benefit from being scaled down? (like the disruptor *cough*)
|
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech
Nostalagy. The current Carrier looks boring as hell. Another press-a-button + "free units" units-design (in before someone tells me that Interceptors do in fact cost minerals).
I would think the cyclone kills everything quickly enough that there is little counter micro available regardless. Maybe this would be another unit that would benefit from being scaled down? (like the disruptor *cough*)
A cyclone has 36 DPS with lock on, which gives Stalkers 4-5 seconds to get out. That's pretty realistic..... if the max range wasn't 14.
Honestly I kinda like the Cyclone conceptwise. It definitely feels different from other terran mech units, and can be made very microrewarding, but its implementation is just so far off from anything being remotely fun. I would expect that it in the next patch will receive a range reduction to 11-12 (with no other changes).
But as I said, I personally like the idea more of reducing range further and buffing its movement speed. I've spent some time thikning about the implication for the interaction of either (a) having 2.8 speed + 11 range vs (b) 3.25 speed + 9 range, and I have a difficult time seeing the disadvantage with the latter.
With 2.8 movement speed, 2.95-3.1 speed units are rarely able to escape once locked on. Nothing is changed here with the 3.25 speed change.
Obviously 2.25 units can't escape vs 2.8 or 3.25, so nothing is changed here as well (but Blizzard please balance the Immortal and Sentry around 2.75 movement speed).
Vs faster units that outnumer the Cyclone --> Cyclone easier time escaping with 3.25 speed (which is good imo).
Vs faster units where the Cyclones are stronger, the faster units will also have an easier time getting out of max range than in the 2.8 solution.
TLDR; With a higher movement speed, the skillcap of the Cyclone is increased as you need to (and is rewarded for) moving it more frequently to be withing the 9-max range. Its role as a harassing/offensive/anti-deathball unit is also further promoted as it easier can be out on the map.
So regardless of how I look at it, the 2.8 movement speed is inferior to the 3.25 solution.
|
This is part of Catz's post on LotV:
(1)
(Light-harrassment units in LotV are in my opinion weaker, because opponent's economy is larger faster and in order to get them in time for them to be relevant and execute jobs like slow down your opponent's economy, get you map control or stop a base - you may need to make some economy cuts or take risks yourself, such as for example cutting a queen in order to make a faster lair).
(2)
Transitions are MUCH more difficult in LotV because of the frequency of the trades, this means you may very well die or lose a base, directly or indirectly while trying to transition safely into something else, the more tedious the transition, the weaker the unit becomes because of the timings the transition opens up for your opponent. As we learn the game however, we might use transitions to *secure* leads in games for example.
(3)
Scouting is difficult, especially with overlords, this is because of the economy changes - The speed in which you get units out is greatly increased, but the map length and overlord speed hasn't changed. It seems to me that it could have been something that was overlooked - however it may not necessarily be game breaking, if I had one change to suggest, it would be to make overlord speed 50/50 instead of 100/100 and also buff the Reapers and Adepts respectively.
|
Why would Blizzard ever think that 14 max range (...) is a good idea anyhow? I think they're misunderstanding their own principles. Yes, if new units are not sufficiently strong they don't get tested properly, but that doesn't mean you should test blatantly excessive versions of those units. There is a rule that any design, no matter how bad, can feel amazingly fun if powerful enough. Flexibility of a unit and the ease by which you can outplay your opponent both scale with strength, but this is illusionary power, based on mistaken tuning. Once Blizzard is done balancing (nerfing) you're left with an essentially untested ability which might not live up to expectations.
|
(Light-harrassment units in LotV are in my opinion weaker, because opponent's economy is larger faster and in order to get them in time for them to be relevant and execute jobs like slow down your opponent's economy, get you map control or stop a base - you may need to make some economy cuts or take risks yourself, such as for example cutting a queen in order to make a faster lair).
Not 100% sure what he is talking about here. Maybe he is talking about the fact that if you invest into harass-units that are bad in securing expansions, then you delay your own economy by too much?
If so, that was actually one of my major complaints about this new economy when it was announced at Blizzcon. However, in hindsight I realized that this merely forces Blizzard into creating units that are both good at harassing and defending at the same time (e.g. Siege tank drops/Cyclones/Disruptors).
This is why the LOTV-economy without these unit changes would be god awful, but actually can work decently with proper unit design behind it.
|
- Cooldown = 5 seconds (I guess its probably close to 10 seconds on the actual beta)
It's a 6 Blizzard-seconds (~4 realtime seconds) cooldown. Lower cooldown and lower leash range sounds like a good idea to me.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
I get the feeling you didn't spent much time thining about the consequences on the interaction before you wrote that one-liner.
I did. The max range only augments unit strength when it's coming within lock range (6 early game) and then being able to stay out of enemy attack range, you can't really run when you're locked because it will just keep firing and kill you.
If it stays within 10 range for example, having 10 max range of 15 max range doesn't change anything. It makes it harder for the cyclone player to play, but especially in small to medium numbers it doesn't change the amount of minerals and gas that you need to overpower and kill the unit.
Allowing it to change locked targets (or lock a new target) more often and/or giving it a big boost to movement speed would make it a much scarier unit in a straight out engagement.
When immortals simply can't get in range ever (because it's 1.5x faster instead of 1.25x faster), blink stalkers suddenly have a lot of trouble catching up to them, other units just can't even get close then it's a big problem - although not being able to deactivate a lock ever (through breaking range, vision etc) is also a huge problem.
I can't think of a cost effective way to fight the unit that you propose (3.25 speed, locking from 6-8 range) - while hard engaging onto the 2.8 speed currently live version should work with a moderate amount of success with several compositions (depending on the damage/health/cost numbers which can and will be tweaked). You phrased it as a nerf when it's at best a design change
------------------
Not 100% sure what he is talking about here. Maybe he is talking about the fact that if you invest into harass-units that are bad in securing expansions, then you delay your own economy by too much?
You need to do a lot more damage in order for opponent to be put behind, losing 5 workers at the 5 minute mark (blizzard time) is nowhere near as crippling
|
On April 05 2015 17:25 Tuczniak wrote:
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech. Normal mech had no antiair, carriers could surprise, counter to carrier was a ground unit which introduced terrain dependency and micro.
In SC2 there is no interaction like that, counters to carriers are mainly air units which is terrain independent and boring. It's really sad when protoss sits on his bases and mass air and eventually game ends up with air battle. It's so bad. Huge land battles with lower tech units, micro dependant and terrain dependant, is what should be the main goal for design.
If they can't come up with interesting unit interaction, carrier being at side lines is actually good choice. Or come up with an idea so making 1-3 is good, and more is bad.
It isn't even more funny that people complained about Swarm Host's range and how it is risk-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
