|
On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit  which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units
This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I don't understand why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway?
I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. My solution has always been to reduce Robo cost, and give the Immortal more of a Dragoon-role with improved responsiveness. This means that a larger percentage of protoss core units comes from a normal production facility, and you should then look at the Robotics Facility as a normal Gateway.
I don't believe that you can have very cost efficeint units from the Warpgate and have sound gameplay at the same time (gonna result in all-in or nothing builds), so I prefer the Immortal-focussed solution. But it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard attempted to make these types of changes,
(1) Buff the Adept around being strong and viable vs anti-light
(2) Nerf the Stalker slightly vs light units and buff it heavily vs armored units (so it can beat Roaches and Ravagers).
Alternatively, they might look at giving the Sentry a new ability to counter Ravagers. I am pretty curious to see what they will do and how it will work out.
|
On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it.
And you don't think ravager's stats/role could be tweaked ? I think it's the units that causes the more problems in the match-up atm.
|
Ok so let's say blizzard would be able to balance and design all the units of the different races so every race is able to expand and defend that expansion.
Do you still think that would be bad in comparison to having a choice to "turtle" ?
|
On April 07 2015 05:31 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. And you don't think ravager's stats/role could be tweaked ? I think it's the units that causes the more problems in the match-up atm.
I have mentioned multiple times it could be tweaked, but the Ravager is only part of the problem. Add Immortal nerfs + the need to take bases faster on top of that, and PvZ is just dumb.
Now allow the Immortal to come out faster and in larger numbers in the midgame and Ravager/Roaches can suddenly be dealt with and protoss can take a 3rd base without simultaenously having super strong all ins.
|
Balance aside, I really like the new units except the cyclone(which I hate). I'm sad that some old units didn't get any changes. Reaper still sucks and DTs are still just cheese. Collossus is still boring. Even though new units bring more micro to the game, late game battles are still super fast, dull, clumped and ugly to look at, which was always my biggest gripe with the game.
Nothing core has really changed aside from economy, which I guess is okay but as someone who left the SC2 scene a while ago, it's not looking like it will pull me back. I'm only mentioning this because I know there are others like me that are taking a peek at SC2 again to see how things are changing. But it's still beta so you never know, I'm sure a lot of changes are still coming. So far I'm impressed by most of the changes.
|
I have to agree. I never liked SC2's late game battles. The unit interactions and compositions are just dull and boring. TvZ is only good because parade push vs muta/ling/bling results in a long, stable midgame. Once zerg decides to transition to lategame and survives it, a snoozefest ensues. They really need to consider doing drastic stuff in the beta like scrapping swarmhosts, tempests and colossus.
The new LotV units look ok so far, but only because HotS set the bar so low. HotS' new units were just a collective train wreck.
|
On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. My solution has always been to reduce Robo cost, and give the Immortal more of a Dragoon-role with improved responsiveness. This means that a larger percentage of protoss core units comes from a normal production facility, and you should then look at the Robotics Facility as a normal Gateway. I don't believe that you can have very cost efficeint units from the Warpgate and have sound gameplay at the same time (gonna result in all-in or nothing builds), so I prefer the Immortal-focussed solution. But it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard attempted to make these types of changes, (1) Buff the Adept around being strong and viable vs anti-light (2) Nerf the Stalker slightly vs light units and buff it heavily vs armored units (so it can beat Roaches and Ravagers). Altneratively they might look at giving the Sentry a new ability to counter Ravagers. I am pretty curious to see what they will do and how it will work out.
Well, the real core of the problem is the forced expansions. If you weren't "forced" to take a fast 3rd or starve by minute 5 or whatever, you could take a bit more time to defend and get up to some power units. I don't think any drastic changes like building cost reductions or huge Gateway unit buffs should be considered until the economy situation is nailed down.
I like the *idea* of what the current economy is trying to accomplish. It DOES encourage taking more bases, and spreading out your production/mining. This has definitely led to more skirmishes around the map, and more focus on denying expansions rather than just simply killing workers to harass economy. It removes a lot of the "3 base turtle" syndrome that so many people are currently complaining about in HotS.
The issue is that it is too punishing if you don't expand. You feel broke all the time. I start hearing "Mineral field depleted" as my third is going down, even if I'm taking a pretty quick third. Losing an expansion is utterly disastrous, and extremely hard to come back from. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know the TL Strategy folks are looking real hard at it and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on the matter. The answer won't be simple, that's for sure.
However, the fact that Blizzard has made such an extremely radical change is incredibly encouraging, as is the fact that this beta will likely be very long. With the Blizzcon finals this year confirmed to be played on Heart of the Swarm, I honestly can't imagine Legacy of the Void to be released until November at the earliest. There is so much time to tackle the economy issue and get excellent data on what works and what doesn't. That needs to be the first priority, and THEN you can worry about tech timings and unit stats. Trying to tweak units/buildings/upgrades/tech before you even have a solid economy is ridiculous. Economy is the root of the ENTIRE game, after all.
|
Canada13393 Posts
Economy post coming well.
Soon (tm)
|
I don't think any drastic changes like building cost reductions or huge Gateway unit buffs should be considered until the economy situation is nailed down.
An economy cannot be looked at isolated, and any type of spread-out economy punishes the immobile race per defintion. So if you have this economy, you have to make changes accordingly to the race that has the hardest time to take bases. Having this type of economy without proper unit design/balance is a waste of everyoens time. Instead you make the changes which has a theoretical possbility of working, and then you test how they actually work in practice.
Losing an expansion is utterly disastrous, and extremely hard to come back from. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know the TL
One change I have been experiemtning (and absolutely loving so far) is reducing the build time of expansions. The result is that losing an expansion is a bit less punishing as you can retake it faster and thus it reducs the snowball effect. Moreover it also further speeds up periods where your just waiting for the expansion to finish, and therefore it kinda reduces dead periods as well.
However, it definitely is a more complictated change as zerg production is boosted in the proces and thus you have to reduce build time of terran and toss production facilites as well.
But Blizzard gotta do something. I am tired of seeing midgames only. I wanna see back-and-fourth late games.
Trying to tweak units/buildings/upgrades/tech before you even have a solid economy is ridiculous. Economy is the root of the ENTIRE game, after all.
Yeh as explained, this isn't how it works. The design and balance of unit/production are 100% related to how the economy works. One type of design could work in LOTV economy, but not in Sc2 or BW economy and vice versa. Deciding on the economy is something that must be done very early in the beta proces. You don't go back and fourth here and instead you have to go all-in and make all the according changes as soon as possible.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
They really need to consider doing drastic stuff in the beta like scrapping swarmhosts, tempests and colossus.
They kinda did scrap the colossus, just not officially. Even if it hadn't been hugely nerfed stat-wise, its viability would be in question because of the other LOTV changes
|
I don't get why this push for using every unit all the time. I'd rather have them diversify some of the units for specific situations. BW had tons of units that nobody really used outside certain conditions, and most games would go on without them.
Now in the beta, obviously the push should be for everyone to use each unit to the max to see how everything stacks up. But I don't see why we can't leave adepts as analogues to reapers or lurkers in their current form in the finished game. They're there if you need them, otherwise you've always got the core units.
|
For protoss I would be so happy if they tried adding a dragoon to the gateway that you can't warp in, it would give protoss stability and it would add the choice of gateway vs warpgate. The problem that could arise is that the game becomes "blob vs blob" but this is where units like lurkers and tanks should come in to place.
|
I don't get why this push for using every unit all the time. I'd rather have them diversify some of the units for specific situations. BW had tons of units that nobody really used outside certain conditions, and most games would go on without them.
Your logic is that that because BW had X then Sc2 should also have X?
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply realize that BW wasn't useful and having lots of different options was a good thing for the game?
For protoss I would be so happy if they tried adding a dragoon to the gateway that you can't warp in,
You already have this solution in the Immortal. Robotics is just a bit too expensive atm. but reduce its cost + tweak the Immortal and its gonna feel alot more like BW.
If you ever played Starbow, I think you would realize that the idea of mixing in Warpgate with Gateway is something that sounds cool in theory, but in reality its really ackward. (Can't remember anyone playing Starbow who thought it was fun having to build Dragoons out of Gateways and then switching them back on).
Mixing in Warpgate + Robotics on the other hand is a simpler solution and accomplishes the exact same thing.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. My solution has always been to reduce Robo cost, and give the Immortal more of a Dragoon-role with improved responsiveness. This means that a larger percentage of protoss core units comes from a normal production facility, and you should then look at the Robotics Facility as a normal Gateway. I don't believe that you can have very cost efficeint units from the Warpgate and have sound gameplay at the same time (gonna result in all-in or nothing builds), so I prefer the Immortal-focussed solution. But it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard attempted to make these types of changes, (1) Buff the Adept around being strong and viable vs anti-light (2) Nerf the Stalker slightly vs light units and buff it heavily vs armored units (so it can beat Roaches and Ravagers). Altneratively they might look at giving the Sentry a new ability to counter Ravagers. I am pretty curious to see what they will do and how it will work out.
How would you stall(? I hope that's the correct word, if not I meant slow down) the mutalisk play until you have stargates? You cannot go stargate every time just "in case". That's what blink stalkers were for, but if you nerf them against light units Protoss will have only(!!) one unit against mutalisks - phoenix.
|
On April 07 2015 18:40 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. My solution has always been to reduce Robo cost, and give the Immortal more of a Dragoon-role with improved responsiveness. This means that a larger percentage of protoss core units comes from a normal production facility, and you should then look at the Robotics Facility as a normal Gateway. I don't believe that you can have very cost efficeint units from the Warpgate and have sound gameplay at the same time (gonna result in all-in or nothing builds), so I prefer the Immortal-focussed solution. But it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard attempted to make these types of changes, (1) Buff the Adept around being strong and viable vs anti-light (2) Nerf the Stalker slightly vs light units and buff it heavily vs armored units (so it can beat Roaches and Ravagers). Altneratively they might look at giving the Sentry a new ability to counter Ravagers. I am pretty curious to see what they will do and how it will work out. How would you stall(? I hope that's the correct word, if not I meant slow down) the mutalisk play until you have stargates? You cannot go stargate every time just "in case". That's what blink stalkers were for, but if you nerf them against light units Protoss will have only(!!) one unit against mutalisks - phoenix.
Glad you asked, as I yesterday spent a couple of hours testing ways to improve the efficiency of Stalkers vs Mutas, and made numerus tweaks as a response. Below are some examples of how you can tweak protoss AA to do better;
- Stalker vs light increased to 11-12. Damage vs armored nerfed.
- Stalker has upgrade at Twilight council that further increases its damage vs light units (it also boosts movement speed in the map I test, but its also worth pointing out that I am testing changes with 15 second blink cooldown).
- I reworked the Archon to make it more "interesting" and in the same process also looked at ways to make them better vs Mutas (but this is probably not something Blizzard is going to do).
- The Mutas I am testing are more about move and shoot as in BW, but have less HP/reg. This means that Storm is better vs them.
- Mutas start with less damage vs armored than vs light, but armored scales more with weapon upgrades so at +3 they deal the same damage as always. This change takes into account that protoss likely will have a lower warpgate count in the midgame, but with Stalker upgrade and Archons, they can deal well enough with Mutas in the late game.
Alternatively, I thought about Immortals having some type of AA or Disruptors having a basic AA attack as well and then its splash ability can be slighty nerfed. Anyway there are lots of variables to tweak on, and ofc you have to think about the big pictures as well. But this doesn't imply that you shuldn't make changes, but rather it becomes a neccesity that you make these changes early in the beta so you have lots of time to test it.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 07 2015 19:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 18:40 deacon.frost wrote:On April 07 2015 05:28 Hider wrote:On April 07 2015 05:08 TT1 wrote:On April 07 2015 04:40 purakushi wrote:On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote:
yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv Yeah, the economic model is now expand or die instead of risk expanding for a benefit which is really hard to do in alot of the matchups, expanding in pvz is extremely hard due to the cost efficiency of zerg units This issue was written in the stone when the new econ was announced at Blizzcon. I have no idea why Blizzard hasn't properly attempted to fix this issue before beta was launched. What have they been doing over the last 4-5 months anyway? I am curious to see how they will attempt to fix it. My solution has always been to reduce Robo cost, and give the Immortal more of a Dragoon-role with improved responsiveness. This means that a larger percentage of protoss core units comes from a normal production facility, and you should then look at the Robotics Facility as a normal Gateway. I don't believe that you can have very cost efficeint units from the Warpgate and have sound gameplay at the same time (gonna result in all-in or nothing builds), so I prefer the Immortal-focussed solution. But it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard attempted to make these types of changes, (1) Buff the Adept around being strong and viable vs anti-light (2) Nerf the Stalker slightly vs light units and buff it heavily vs armored units (so it can beat Roaches and Ravagers). Altneratively they might look at giving the Sentry a new ability to counter Ravagers. I am pretty curious to see what they will do and how it will work out. How would you stall(? I hope that's the correct word, if not I meant slow down) the mutalisk play until you have stargates? You cannot go stargate every time just "in case". That's what blink stalkers were for, but if you nerf them against light units Protoss will have only(!!) one unit against mutalisks - phoenix. Glad you asked, because I spent a couple of hours testing ways to improve the efficiency of Stalkers vs Mutas, and made numerus tweaks as a response. Below are some examples of how you can tweak protoss AA to do better; - Stalker vs light increased to 11-12. Damage vs armored nerfed. - Stalker has upgrade at Twilight council that further increases its damage vs light units (it also boosts movement speed in the map I test, but its also worth pointing out that I am testing changes with 15 second blink cooldown). - I reworked the Archon to make it more "interesting" and in the same process also looked at ways to make them better vs Mutas (but this is probably not something Blizzard is going to do). - The Mutas I am testing are more about move and shoot as in BW, but have less HP/reg. This means that Storm is better vs them. - Mutas start with less damage vs armored than vs light, but armored scales more with weapon upgrades so at +3 they deal the same damage as always. This changes takes into account that protoss likely will have a lower warpgate count in the midgame, but with Stalker upgrade and Archons, they can deal well enough with Mutas in the late game. Alternatively, I thought about Immortals having some type of AA or Disruptors having a basic AA attack as well and then its splash ability can be slighty nerfed. Anyway there are lots of variables to tweak on, and ofc you have to think about the big pictures as well. But this doesn't imply that you shuldn't make changes, but rather it becomes a neccesity that you make these changes early in the beta so you have lots of time to test it.
Well I agree, there are plenty of ways.
I personally like the TC buff, that you pay for having a better damage. It won't screw marines, because you still need blink over this buff, so... maybe double TC builds!  I like that you thought about this, nice read.
|
I personally like the TC buff, that you pay for having a better damage. It won't screw marines, because you still need blink over this buff, so... maybe double TC builds! I like that you thought about this, nice read.
Thanks, and I think the upgrade fits in nicely with the focus on Immortal as a core unit. Its not a dead neccesity to get it because you can in theory go Immortal/Zealot/archon and have a more cost-efficient army. But going for the upgrade + Stalkers gives you very strong map control/harass tools in the midgame while being able to deal with Marine drops and Mutalisks.
So the upgrade here allows you play a slightly different style as protoss.
|
Here's to hoping for new beta invites today!
|
On April 07 2015 15:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I don't get why this push for using every unit all the time. I'd rather have them diversify some of the units for specific situations. BW had tons of units that nobody really used outside certain conditions, and most games would go on without them.
Now in the beta, obviously the push should be for everyone to use each unit to the max to see how everything stacks up. But I don't see why we can't leave adepts as analogues to reapers or lurkers in their current form in the finished game. They're there if you need them, otherwise you've always got the core units.
Well, the issue is Protoss needs help pretty badly at the moment, and people are asking "Why not the Adept?" because it at least has some cool mechanics going on with it.
|
On April 07 2015 19:43 KeksX wrote:
Here's to hoping for new beta invites today!
Why today? Did I miss something?
On April 06 2015 13:20 fruity. wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
