| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
On April 05 2015 20:16 Ramiz1989 wrote: It isn't even more funny that people complained about Swarm Host range and how it is risky-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol. You can do that? :0 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9395 Posts
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. This is straight up wrong, and it's very easy to proof with a quick example. Imagine 1 Cyclone (with upgrade) vs 3 Stalkers (no blink) --> Cyclone locks on to a target --> Locked on Stalker takes damage and then tries to move away --> Other Stalkers continue to attack the Cyclone Outcome with 14 range The Stalker will typically die before it gets out of range with the Cyclone taking almost no damage. The only situation where it doesn't die is if the protoss player react instantly and the terran player keeps right-clicking back. If the terran insteads stops the Cyclone for a brief period, it will maintain the 14 range, while also maintaining a decent distance from the 2 other Stalkers (its typically like 3-4 range away from them). You could argue that its easier for the Stalkers to get additional attacks off after the first Stalker is died, and chase the Cyclone down. But in reality, the 2.95 Stalkers with attack-delay can't really do any type of damage that matters here. Outcome with 9 range With 9 range, however, there are two major differences: (1) He never gets out of the attack-range of the two Stalkers if the injured Stalker moves back instantly. (2) He needs to chase and will therefore pass by the 2 Stalkers attacking it, while the Cyclone with 14-15 range could maintain a decent distance from the two other Stalkers. Outcome with blink Blink completley shuts down 9 range Cyclone. Blink isn't that reliable vs 14-15 range Cyclone Different unit numbers THIS only gets worse when you change unit numbers. The more Cyclones you have, the more important it gets that the enemy can quickly move back the locked on target. 2 Cyclones vs 3 Stalkers kills at least one Stalker and takes 0 damage in the proces with 14 range. With 9 range they do however at least take some damage. Cyclone vs Muta? Always dies with 14-15 range. On the other hand, it's very realistic to get it out of 9 range. I litteraly spent hours testing different scenarios in the unit tester, and I suggest you take 5 minutes of your own time as well, because your simply incorrect here, and it's easy to verifiy. And in the above example, I was only thinking about the countermicro potential. The fact that it also makes it much harder to use Cyclones optimally is also a very good thing imo. 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). Blink, Colossus (in larger numbers) are both better vs 9-range Cyclone. If zerg, Hydras and Roaches will function similarly to the Stalker scenario. When the enemy micros, and even when the Cyclone player responds optimally, the outcome is almost always worse (for the Cyclone player) than in the 14-range scenario. Just think (or test) about it for a moment. Can Hydralisks or Roaches ever catch up to a Cyclone with 9 lock-on and 14 max range that has 2.8 movement speed? In reality, the answer here is no. It can basically "kite" forever, so I really don't know what your imagining here and why you think 3.25 changes everything. I could understand if it currently was balanced around a very slow movement speed where enemies could catch up to it or where it was easy to get out of range due it being so bad at chasing. But 2.85 is just a middle-of-road stat that reduces the skillcap while still being fast enough to prevent counterplay. . | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
Well, new Carrier ability works like this: You release all of the Interceptors to attack one area, they have duration now and they will be destroyed after they expire, but you can already build new Interceptors while old ones are attacking and you can move Carriers wherever you want. Watched on Destiny's stream how Huk came with Carriers, used new ability and Interceptors start destroying Destiny's base, while Huk recalled all of his Carriers and there was just a mass of Interceptors destroying everything. That being said, they last for quite a long time(it feels like 1 minute or something). Yes, they cost minerals but they are quite cheap for how much damage they are doing and if you have gone a lot of Carriers you will probably have large mineral bank. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On April 05 2015 20:16 Ramiz1989 wrote: 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. you still have to cross the map with ur carrier... wtf are u talking about | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 06 2015 02:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote: After playing even more games, I'm pretty sure I've decided that I really, really don't like the half mineral/reduced gas changes. You just run out of resources way too fast, and it also makes losing an expansion, even early on, utterly disastrous. I like the idea of what it is trying to do, but as said in the first post, I just don't think it's the right way to go about things. I feel like maybe simply taking out one or two mineral patches entirely and going back to normal min/gas amounts would be a better starting approach to altering how the economy works. Anything to change the current SC2 "3 base is all you need" dynamic without making it all feel so....frantic. I really wish they'd figure out a way to implement that "efficiency" mechanic from BW/Starbow... I'd still want to expand more than I do now but there's a time and place to sit in base. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10675 Posts
On April 06 2015 02:59 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Well, it seems like that's the most prevalent feedback so far in regards to the economy, so perhaps they'll listen. Hell, even doing what they've done shows they are willing to make huge changes to the very core of the game, so there's definite hope they can figure out something better than the current model. The current LotV model at least solves half of the problem so far, encouraging more bases, which results in skirmishes all over rather than a single huge army fight. That is good, I will have to wait until I get access to really see how the resource changes work since I cannot watch streams either due to data cap, but I am actually excited to try the new resource changes. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2648 Posts
On April 05 2015 18:01 Hider wrote: 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). 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. That seems like a great idea, I've always thought that hellion/cyclone its what mech needs to be able to move in the map. A good example is this game: In here you can see how hellion/banshee its capable of taking map control, however the banshee fails to fullfill the role mech needs, even with the new speed upgrade banshee isn't capable of taking map control the same way hellions do, specially against protoss, as blink stalkers are good both vs hellions and banshees, and altough the siege tank/drop is good its too expensive and can also be simply overpowered by blink stalkers. Here you can see how stalkers are capable of shuting down mech early aggression and also of overpowering mech in general. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On April 06 2015 03:11 GGzerG wrote: That is good, I will have to wait until I get access to really see how the resource changes work since I cannot watch streams either due to data cap, but I am actually excited to try the new resource changes. The idea behind what they are trying to do definitely feels like the right direction, the execution of that idea just needs some work. It's just very jarring to start hearing "Mineral field depleted" when you've only just taken your third. And especially when I'm playing Protoss on some of these maps (playing random for beta, but I main Protoss) it's really hard to hold some of these expansions, and losing one is so disastrous because you start running out of everything much faster. So yeah, things are in a weird place right now, but imo the improvements still outweigh the downsides. Action starts faster, and happens in more places. Plus, Carriers are actually units you want to transition to now, so that is ALWAYS a plus. | ||
|
SnowStormer
Norway275 Posts
 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9395 Posts
That seems like a great idea, I've always thought that hellion/cyclone its what mech needs to be able to move in the map. Yep, Cyclone can take out static defense and armored units which makes mech much better at harassing. It always frustrated me when I wanted to play mech and the enemy build 1-2 spines at each base and completely shut me down --> Then I was forced to turtle --> Nothing happened for 40 mins. So mech definitely needed something like the Cyclone and in terms of the micro, I think it could be quite fun (if tweaked) as well. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10010 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
On April 06 2015 09:32 TT1 wrote: does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2? Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance. Arbitrary numbers: If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit. a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5) Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps. I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory) | ||
|
TT1
Canada10010 Posts
On April 06 2015 09:39 Cyro wrote: Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance. Arbitrary numbers: If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit. a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5) Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps. I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory) so a safe bet would be around 15-16? | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
IIRC at least two mineral fields are far so I would say more like 18. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
http://www.hitbox.tv/teamgravity | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
Anywhere from ~10 to ~30 but with more your mineral advantage will be counteracted some by mining out faster. It depends on the patch positions and how anal you are about every worker being at very high efficiency, most of that advantage is lost anyway when you don't babysit your workers (with 50 across 3-4 bases, how could you?) to keep them off the far patches | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
Kung Fu Cup
BSL Team Wars
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Classic
Clem vs herO
Serral vs Bunny
Reynor vs Zoun
Cosmonarchy
Bonyth vs Dewalt
[BSL 2025] Weekly
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
BSL Team Wars
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
