"Access to the #LoTV beta is going live for select accounts. Please review the full details: http://blizz.ly/Voidbeta_FAQ"
PATCH NOTES
General Gameplay Changes
Half of the mineral patches have 1500 (same as HotS), and the other half have 750.
Vespene Geysers’ max Vespene reduced from 2500 to 1700.
Starting worker count increased from 6 to 12 for all races.
All races have had the supply contribution of their town hall structures increased.
Command Center: Increased from 11 to 15 supply
Hatchery: Increased from 2 to 6 supply
Nexus: Increased from 10 to 14 supply
Unit “Scan Range”
Increased for ground units from “5” to a unit’s “Weapon Range + 0.5”.
Increases for ground units with upgrades that increase Weapon Range.
Game speed altered to match that of real time.
Tooltips now match game timer at all speeds.
Racial Changes
Terran
New Unit: Cyclone
A ranged Factory unit that can attack both air and ground units and use the Lock On ability.
Ability – Lock On: Locks onto a target, drastically increasing range and rate of fire for 14 seconds.
Marauder
Increased the number of attacks from 1 to 2, halved damage and bonus damage.
Siege Tank
Can now be picked up and dropped while in Siege Mode.
Banshee
New Upgrade- Hyperflight Rotors: Increases Banshee’s movement speed by 1.0.
Battlecruiser
New Ability - Tactical Jump: After 4 seconds, warp to any target location. Battlecruiser is invulnerable while it is warping.
.
Raven
Point Defense Drone duration decreased from 180 seconds to 20 seconds.
Durable Materials now increases PDD duration by 10 seconds.
Missile Turret
Requirement changed from Engineering Bay to Barracks.
Thor
High Impact Payload removed.
Zerg
New Unit: Ravager
A morph off of the Roach which has increased stats and can use Corrosive Bile.
Ability – Corrosive Bile: Corrosive Bile is a mortar-style area of effect skill-shot which impacts after a short delay once fired. The impact strikes both air and ground units, destroying any Force Fields it comes in contact with.
New Unit: Lurker
Tier 2 siege unit that can perform a line-based area of effect ground attack while burrowed.
Morphs off of the Hydralisk, and requires a Lurker Den.
Roach
Tunneling Claws has been removed. Roaches can now always move while burrowed.
Burrow move speed increased on Creep after Glial Reconstitution is researched.
Hydralisk
Added morph to Lurker.
Grooved Spines removed, +1 range added to Muscular Augments.
Corruptor
New Ability – Caustic Spray: Channeled ability that initially deals 5 damage per second to any building. Damage is increased to 25 damage per second after 6 seconds.
Removed Corruption Ability.
Swarm Host
Cost modified from 200 Minerals and 100 Vespene to 100 Minerals and 200 Vespene.
Supply cost increased from 3 to 4.
Movement speed increased from 2.25 to 2.95.
Swarm Hosts now require the Burrow research in order to burrow.
Swarm Hosts no longer collide with Locusts.
Spawn Locusts:
Auto-cast removed, Spawn Locusts must now be manually cast.
Spawn Locusts cooldown increased from 25 seconds to 60 seconds.
Casting Spawn Locusts no longer requires a Swarm Host to be burrowed.
Locust
Weapon speed increased from .8 to .6.
Locust duration increased from 15 seconds (+10 seconds with Enduring Locusts) to 30 seconds.
Adrenal Glands
Attack speed bonus increased from 18.6% to 40%.
Infestation Pit
Enduring Locusts – This upgrade has been removed.
New upgrade: Flying Locusts - Allows Locusts spawned by Swarm Hosts to fly. Flying Locusts can use Swoop:
Requires Lair.
Cost is 200 Minerals, 200 Vespene, 160 seconds.
Swoop: Orders the Locust to land at the targeted location, allowing it to attack.
Nydus Worm
Invulnerable while constructing.
Viper
New ability - Parasitic Bomb: Latch onto an air unit, dealing 90 damage over 7 seconds to that unit and any air units around it. Effect persists for the remaining duration if the target is destroyed.
Ultralisk
Chitinous Plating: Bonus armor increased from +2 to +4.
Protoss
New Unit: Adept
A slow-moving harassment unit from the Gateway that can use Psionic Transfer.
Ability – Psionic Transfer: Projects an invulnerable Psionic Image that can move but not attack. After 7 seconds, the Adept teleports to the image’s location.
New Unit: Disruptor
A light-mechanical unit from the Robotics Facility that can use Purification Nova.
Ability – Purification Nova: Once activated, the Disruptor becomes invulnerable and gains increased movement speed. After 4 seconds, the Disruptor emits a massive blast dealing AoE damage in a circle and immediately becomes vulnerable again, also losing its speed boost.
Mothership (Core)
Time Warp maximum radius increased from 3.5 to 8. The Time Warp will now appear small at first and grow over time, and will not slow units until reaching maximum size.
Warp Prism
Pick up range has been greatly increased to 7.
Immortal
Removed Hardened Shield Ability.
New Ability – Barrier: Immortal gains a 100 damage shield for 3 seconds.
Colossus
Base damage reduced by 20%.
Oracle
Removed Envision.
Revelation now tags cloaked and burrowed units, revealing them for 60 seconds. Cost reduced from 75 to 50 energy.
New Ability – Stasis Ward: Constructs a cloaked trap on target location. When triggered, enemy units in proximity are trapped in stasis for 30 seconds.
Tempest
Removed damage bonus against massive units.
New Ability – Disintegration: Deals 500 damage over 80 seconds to target unit.
Carrier
Build time reduced from 120 seconds to 90 seconds.
New Ability – Release Interceptors: Launches Interceptors to fight at target area for 60 seconds.
dont know, seeing the new protoss units and other races stuff -.- also the buffs and nerfs everyone gut and turrets from barracks etc ... i play protoss since 1998 but i guess i will change my race ... it seems ... boring ... its like jaeh you can flame protoss for doing dt shananigans but with all that i cant see anything expect deathball working and thats ... boring also both new units doesnt fit and looks boring
doesnt help that the community if p wins 1 of 10 tournaments or just a single game in a tournament cry for nerfs and how imba p is ... its all so much worse then 10 years ago ... i feel the community went what you never should went fully (u know what i mean)
I think it would be interesting if they made the 750 patches the 4 close ones and not alternate every other. Maybe it will create the choice between mining a few extra minerals at the start or mining out slower?
On April 01 2015 11:52 Drake wrote: dont know, seeing the new protoss units and other races stuff -.- also the buffs and nerfs everyone gut and turrets from barracks etc ... i play protoss since 1998 but i guess i will change my race ... it seems ... boring ... its like jaeh you can flame protoss for doing dt shananigans but with all that i cant see anything expect deathball working and thats ... boring also both new units doesnt fit and looks boring
doesnt help that the community if p wins 1 of 10 tournaments or just a single game in a tournament cry for nerfs and how imba p is ... its all so much worse then 10 years ago ... i feel the community went what you never should went fully (u know what i mean)
I thought adept looked boring at first (like a unit that will only work early game then be too flimsy - ie reaper).... but thinking about, I think it could be really cool as a warp prism drop.
Upg bounce attack, drop 4 of them, send their shade to the nat, if they go for the prism you let them fuck up the nat, if they try to intercept the adepts you warp in more units with your prism.. duno seems like lots of cool stuff like that can happen :D
And the disruptor seems like it could be used for reaver-esque mineral line drops oO
I got a BlizzCon 2014 Virtual Ticket—do I get beta access? Yes, we’ll be granting beta access to those who purchased a BlizzCon 2014 Virtual Ticket or redeemed one on their Battle.net account. See above.
i bought virtual ticket. Where is my beta key??? i still havent received yet
"Battlecruiser is invulnerable while it is warping" I never heard about that before =O So when you get into a deciding engagement you just warp every damaged BC home and repair it /=
On April 01 2015 12:08 XiaoJoyce- wrote: Marauder change is a nerf to marauder, right?
Yeah, it's weaker against armor.
Marauder is now weaker against armored units ... the units it was good against. Good luck killing Zealot / Adept / Sentry light armor pushes. I think Terrans are just going to straight die to that push over and over again as longs as Adept does all that splash. Going to see a lot more bunkers for a while, mark my words.
I got in! I played on TvT so far. Guys... this game is so different than HoTS. You have sooo much money and you can expand super fast. It doesn't even feel like the same game. I can already tell this is going to produce some epic matches at the pro level.
The seige tank drop is amazing for TvT and creates so much more micro.
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Cyclone.
Booooring...
Well, Thors, Widow Mines and Tanks are still there, you can't kill Ultras with just bio anymore.
Hm. The cyclone looks really quite terrible watching Bomber's stream against this Toss..It looks like we will see a lot of Tank play and likely Bc's often.
On April 01 2015 12:37 Alucen-Will- wrote: Hm. The cyclone looks really quite terrible watching Bomber's stream against this Toss..It looks like we will see a lot of Tank play and likely Bc's often.
Terrible? You can kill enemy(any race) with just 2 of them if he isn't prepared enough, and I don't mean prepared like make units, but units that specifically counters Cyclones.
On April 01 2015 12:37 Alucen-Will- wrote: Hm. The cyclone looks really quite terrible watching Bomber's stream against this Toss..It looks like we will see a lot of Tank play and likely Bc's often.
Terrible? You can kill enemy(any race) with just 2 of them if he isn't prepared enough, and I don't mean prepared like make units, but units that specifically counters Cyclones.
On April 01 2015 12:37 Alucen-Will- wrote: Hm. The cyclone looks really quite terrible watching Bomber's stream against this Toss..It looks like we will see a lot of Tank play and likely Bc's often.
Terrible? You can kill enemy(any race) with just 2 of them if he isn't prepared enough, and I don't mean prepared like make units, but units that specifically counters Cyclones.
He couldn't do anything against plain stalkers
If you have overwhelming number of Stalkers, yes, they do counter Cyclones because Stalkers are faster than them, but that is only if you have like 6-7 Stalkers against 2 Cyclones.
Nathanias got into Huk's base with 2 Cyclones against 2 Stalkers and MSC, killed MSC before Huk even managed to activate Photon overcharge, killed few Stalkers, Huk warp-ined more Stalkers and he killed them too. Then Huk managed to get few Stalkers in the back of the base, and came back with 4 that he had sent to harass Nathanias, and destroyed 2 Cyclones.
They are really strong, but you can't just a-click with them or move into Stalkers and hope that you can escape.
Does anyone know why some maps have 1500 min patches at all patches, while other maps have the 750/1500 split? Nathanias' stream showed one map that had all patches at 1500, and a poster on B.net forums said a lot of the maps still have the regular patch distribution
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
and slow
Why did they touch Marauders? As a Protoss player I'm perplexed... Blink Stalker all-ins not a problem? We still regularly see them at the highest level.
And Colossus 20% less damage? That is the nail in the coffin for them in ZvP basically. They were already risky as hell versus Zerg with Vipers.
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
and slow
Why did they touch Marauders? As a Protoss player I'm perplexed... Blink Stalker all-ins not a problem? We still regularly see them at the highest level.
And Colossus 20% less damage? That is the nail in the coffin for them in ZvP basically. They were already risky as hell versus Zerg with Vipers.
I think they want to make mech more viable, particularly against protoss. They also nerfed the colussus and immortal aswell, which I think is a push to change the current stale metagame.
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
and slow
Why did they touch Marauders? As a Protoss player I'm perplexed... Blink Stalker all-ins not a problem? We still regularly see them at the highest level.
And Colossus 20% less damage? That is the nail in the coffin for them in ZvP basically. They were already risky as hell versus Zerg with Vipers.
I think they want to make mech more viable, particularly against protoss. They also nerfed the colussus and immortal aswell, which I think is a push to change the current stale metagame.
You know what is really sad:
I told them to nerf Colossus and changed Hardened shield to fix mech... back during the HOTS beta:
I also told them to increase the attack speed of Tanks, and nerf Hellbats, and we know what happened.
The problem is, Bio will continue to be the better choice over Mech, because of Marines. Make Mech units stronger and people will just combine them with unupgraded Marines and 1-1-1 again. Reducing the power of Colossus and Immortals makes Mech better, but it also makes Bio better.
On April 01 2015 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote: And Colossus 20% less damage? That is the nail in the coffin for them in ZvP basically. They were already risky as hell versus Zerg with Vipers.
At the last blizzcon, David Kim stated that they were never really happy with the way colossus were being used in their aoe role, so I am surmising here that the nerf to colossus along with the rolling ball of doom addition is blizz rolling this plan out.
On April 01 2015 12:29 Noocta wrote: So what does Terran uses to counter Ultralisk now that Ultra have 2 more armors, and Marauders get affected twice as much by armor ? Sounds fishy...
Good thing Ultralisks are still insanely expensive
and slow
Why did they touch Marauders? As a Protoss player I'm perplexed... Blink Stalker all-ins not a problem? We still regularly see them at the highest level.
And Colossus 20% less damage? That is the nail in the coffin for them in ZvP basically. They were already risky as hell versus Zerg with Vipers.
I think they want to make mech more viable, particularly against protoss. They also nerfed the colussus and immortal aswell, which I think is a push to change the current stale metagame.
You know what is really sad:
I told them to nerf Colossus and changed Hardened shield to fix mech... back during the HOTS beta:
I also told them to increase the attack speed of Tanks, and nerf Hellbats, and we know what happened.
The problem is, Bio will continue to be the better choice over Mech, because of Marines.
Perhaps, the tank is now a much stronger unit overall because of mobility and the reduced strength of its counters. Marines themselves are still relatively fragile units which creates difficulties with the weaker marauders.
On April 01 2015 13:11 ChoDing wrote: Unit “Scan Range” Increased for ground units from “5” to a unit’s “Weapon Range + 0.5
that seems no fun. so siege tank vs siege tank you dont need viking? ...sight battle has been out there since the beginning...
Unless I'm mistaken, "scan range" is just the area in which a unit auto-acquires its target in A-move mode. It can't pick targets it can't see, though. Vision range is still important.
I promised myself once the game got to be LoTV I'd go back to playing it since I assumed it would come out around the time I'd graduate college with how blizzard is with updates, but this is wayyyy sooner than I expected. Hope I get an invite to try it out, it seems like blizz is really messing around with the game.
On April 01 2015 13:11 ChoDing wrote: Unit “Scan Range” Increased for ground units from “5” to a unit’s “Weapon Range + 0.5
that seems no fun. so siege tank vs siege tank you dont need viking? ...sight battle has been out there since the beginning...
Unless I'm mistaken, "scan range" is just the area in which a unit auto-acquires its target in A-move mode. It can't pick targets it can't see, though. Vision range is still important.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure units still can't shoot through Fog of War and you'll still need spotters for Tanks.
The scan range change is mainly for things like a-moving Stalkers to kill mines; the change makes it so Stalkers don't a-move into mine range even though they out-range mines.
On April 01 2015 13:26 Cricketer12 wrote: Missile Turret buff is redic
Flash back to bonjwa status incoming
What I especially like about the LotV beta streams is that they're all mostly playing on the new TLMC maps. It's a nice breath of fresh air after many months of the old map pool.
Yeah I've seen a couple games of Nates and it's so much more fun to watch people on new maps. Sooo over the old map pool. Also loving the look of Marine/Tank TvZ against Lurkers etc :D
On April 01 2015 13:26 Cricketer12 wrote: Missile Turret buff is redic
Why?
Well nothing's conclusive right now since all the timings are completely new, but imagine that instead of going 2 rax engineering bay to be safe in TvP you could just go 3 rax and pressure while getting turrets up.
On April 01 2015 13:26 Cricketer12 wrote: Missile Turret buff is redic
Why?
Well nothing's conclusive right now since all the timings are completely new, but imagine that instead of going 2 rax engineering bay to be safe in TvP you could just go 3 rax and pressure while getting turrets up.
I'm thinking it was changed to help us mere mortals. I can't see it overly mattering much to the pro's who'd likely spend their money elsewhere than on static defence, just like they always have.
I've never been comfortable (happy?) With units like the oracle or widow mine that can instantly wipe mineral lines, it's frankly a GG moment (and the higher up the ladders you go the bigger the GG factor).
So I see this change aimed at the 95 odd percent who are not in masters or above.
As you say though, nothing conclusive, nor set in stone. But in theory I like the change.
Right now I can't figure out how protoss is supposed to beat mech. I'm guessing air units (air opener is pretty solid for the early game) but I havent tried the fleet beacon units yet.
Somehow I feel strange about that turret change, on the one hand I like it, on the other hand making building dependencies even easier doesn't appeal to me. Also where's the flying ebay? Boulevard of broken dreams...
On April 01 2015 14:48 Empirimancer wrote: Why remove the single-target Thor mode? It wasn't used very often but it occasionally came it handy.
I'm guessing that they wanted to replace it with a different ability, which was self-repair, but that didn't work out so they just haven't gotten around to designing an alternative. I think Cyclones will be pretty decent at the single-target anti-air damage, and I hope they become a potential analogue to Goliaths, so I think Blizz doesn't want overlap with that. Still, it will be sad to see all those Thor cannons go to waste...
I haven't seen a lot of corrosive bile hitting its targets. Is this how it's suppose to be, or was Blizzard intending it to get hits in? I feel like its speed and splash could be buffed a bit in exchange for damage if they want people to ever hit with it.
On April 01 2015 15:31 Pontius Pirate wrote: I haven't seen a lot of corrosive bile hitting its targets. Is this how it's suppose to be, or was Blizzard intending it to get hits in? I feel like its speed and splash could be buffed a bit in exchange for damage if they want people to ever hit with it.
It's definitely intended to be a skillshot. In addition, you don't always use it to go for damage. It's a super useful zoning tool, forcing your opponent to alter their positioning. Basically, throw down bile wherever you don't want them to be, ruin their concave, and draw them closer into your army.
In addition, beta's only been out for a few hours. People are still getting used to the delay between issuing the shot and it connecting. Going to take a while for people to figure out the timing and really nail it. Just like hittin your arrows with PotM.
yeah this game is looking a LOT faster than previous iterations of the game. point defense drones that have a 10 minute timer or a 30 second timer will last about as long in a close fight. the only difference is that longer duration PDD's will hang around and regen energy if the battle wasn't close and you were able to press forward. i think it's kind of cool to have them hang around and have that be a consideration for your planning pre-battle (are my PDD's likely to hang around afterward given the look of our two armies?), but blizzard must have some balance concern and think that PDD's hanging around for too long is bad for the game.
PDD nerf is WAY too much 180 secondes to 20 secondes.... 100 could have been ok
Ultralisk armor from 2 to 4. Are marines could damage them now or will they be invunerable ? Even with the 2 marauders attakc with halved damage they will be impossible to kill
Nydus worm : How can you prevent you to be surrounded by a zerg if they are invulnerable under construction ? The goal was to find them and kill them before zerg players can enter in your base... That's sick
On April 01 2015 16:25 bObA wrote: Nydus worm : How can you prevent you to be surrounded by a zerg if they are invulnerable under construction ? The goal was to find them and kill them before zerg players can enter in your base... That's sick
In the recent skyhigh vs losira in proleague, losira threw down 5 nydus networks at once, then tried to storm skyhigh's base using all at once. Sadly it didnt work as skyhigh had banshee's close by, and dealt with it easily. Was a nice tactic.. But can you imagine that happening with lotv's invulnerability change...
On April 01 2015 16:25 bObA wrote: Imo 3 things are really bad :
PDD nerf is WAY too much 180 secondes to 20 secondes.... 100 could have been ok
Ultralisk armor from 2 to 4. Are marines could damage them now or will they be invunerable ? Even with the 2 marauders attakc with halved damage they will be impossible to kill
Nydus worm : How can you prevent you to be surrounded by a zerg if they are invulnerable under construction ? The goal was to find them and kill them before zerg players can enter in your base... That's sick
100 would change nothing, though. The point is to not have endless PDDs, and 100 would make it so. 20 + 10 is so that you can use it in an engagement or two, but thats it.
Also Ultralisk armor is stronger, yes, but Terran will have upgrades as well at that point.
Invincible Nydus I don't know, I personally hate invincible stuff.
On April 01 2015 17:00 jekku wrote: So.... cyclones are broken as tits (and i'm a terran lol).
Yeah, vs Protoss it looks pretty broken. Knowing my luck it'll be fixed/removed before I get beta access and I won't get to experience having such an OP unit
On April 01 2015 16:25 bObA wrote: Imo 3 things are really bad :
PDD nerf is WAY too much 180 secondes to 20 secondes.... 100 could have been ok
Ultralisk armor from 2 to 4. Are marines could damage them now or will they be invunerable ? Even with the 2 marauders attakc with halved damage they will be impossible to kill
Nydus worm : How can you prevent you to be surrounded by a zerg if they are invulnerable under construction ? The goal was to find them and kill them before zerg players can enter in your base... That's sick
100 would change nothing, though. The point is to not have endless PDDs, and 100 would make it so. 20 + 10 is so that you can use it in an engagement or two, but thats it.
Also Ultralisk armor is stronger, yes, but Terran will have upgrades as well at that point.
Invincible Nydus I don't know, I personally hate invincible stuff.
I don´t think it´s super bad that zerg T3 don´t get destroyed by marines. They should be scary to face but they are still slow and clumsy as hell. Stuff still come out of nydus quite slowly so it might not be that bad but a simple health buff or not having that huge sound telling everyone when you use a nydus would be better.
On April 01 2015 17:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Terran REALLY gets shafted here. Bio lategame useless, against Zerg and the cyclone is so clearly op we're all certain it'll be nerfed.
Meanwhile, Protoss and Zerg shit seems really cool, so looking forward to that !!
Come on Blizz, give Terran some love.
Don´t worry, Blizz has a proud tradition of having terran OP in the start so they will not touch the cyclone
I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
On April 01 2015 17:34 Lunareste wrote: I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
I heard protoss isn't able to win games at the moment
On April 01 2015 17:34 Lunareste wrote: I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
Siege Tanks are now buffed through Medivacs, and Cyclones are intended to be the counter to Ultralisks. Bio isn't supposed to be viable (it seems) late game vs zerg. Outright buffing Siege Tanks would be a mistake, however, I personally like the idea of a lategame upgrade to its splash damage (something that would require Fusion Core).
On April 01 2015 17:34 Lunareste wrote: I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
Siege Tanks are now buffed through Medivacs, and Cyclones are intended to be the counter to Ultralisks. Bio isn't supposed to be viable (it seems) late game vs zerg.
Is it not good for the game and something terrans have been hoping for to have to play something else than bio 24/7?
On April 01 2015 17:34 Lunareste wrote: I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
Siege Tanks are now buffed through Medivacs, and Cyclones are intended to be the counter to Ultralisks. Bio isn't supposed to be viable (it seems) late game vs zerg.
Is it not good for the game and something terrans have been hoping for to have to play something else than bio 24/7?
Yeh, so you must understand Blizzard here. What Blizzard doesn't want is to reward more turtling in the game, which would occur if they received an outright damage buff. Instead they wanna increase mech-viability thourhg the Cyclone (at least this is a buff mid/early game).
Hellion > Speedlings, but losses to Roaches/Spines. Cyclones < Speedlings, but counters Roaches/Spines.
W/ regards to Siege Tanks, Blizzard wants you to turtle less with them, and instead harass with them in the early/midgame. During engagements, your Siege Tanks will be even stronger - but only with proper micro - as you need to pick up Siege Tanks with medivacs.
So mech definitely seems buffed here, however, I do agree that Siege Tanks could receive a very late game upgrade as I think they will fall off when you have like 6+bases.
LOTV looks like League of Legends, with all the abilities and gimmicks, looks like Blizzard cares about the numbers of people playing than having a hardcore RTS game. Very disappointing from what Ive seen on-stream.
Thank F*** there are other RTS games to play that dont look like super mario brothers.
On April 01 2015 18:04 Parcelleus wrote: Im glad I didnt get a key, and I dont want one.
LOTV looks like League of Legends, with all the abilities and gimmicks, looks like Blizzard cares about the numbers of people playing than having a hardcore RTS game. Very disappointing from what Ive seen on-stream.
Thank F*** there are other RTS games to play that dont look like super mario brothers.
On April 01 2015 18:04 Parcelleus wrote: Im glad I didnt get a key, and I dont want one.
LOTV looks like League of Legends, with all the abilities and gimmicks, looks like Blizzard cares about the numbers of people playing than having a hardcore RTS game. Very disappointing from what Ive seen on-stream.
Thank F*** there are other RTS games to play that dont look like super mario brothers.
OMG people toy around with gimmicks on day one of a beta? Blizzard cares about numbers and not some whining elitists opinion?
On April 01 2015 16:09 Doc Daneeka wrote: It's fucking hilarious how beastly the ravager is. it hurts my zerg soul to say it, but i think that unit will get nerfed at some point in the beta.
Hopefully the nerfs primarily center around its inexplicably high DPS and not corrosive bile.
On April 01 2015 16:09 Doc Daneeka wrote: It's fucking hilarious how beastly the ravager is. it hurts my zerg soul to say it, but i think that unit will get nerfed at some point in the beta.
Hopefully the nerfs primarily center around its inexplicably high DPS and not corrosive bile.
Isn't it mostly an issue vs toss (balancewise) though? When I looked at all of the changes to the beta, it would just make so much sense to me if protoss -especailly vs zerg - got absolutely screwed in the early midgame. One thing they could change really fast is to reduce the infastructure cost of protoss and thereby allow them to get more units out slightly faster (and thus match the unit count of terran and zerg better). This will result in them relying less on forcefields and Msc.
On April 01 2015 18:04 Parcelleus wrote: Im glad I didnt get a key, and I dont want one.
LOTV looks like League of Legends, with all the abilities and gimmicks, looks like Blizzard cares about the numbers of people playing than having a hardcore RTS game. Very disappointing from what Ive seen on-stream.
Thank F*** there are other RTS games to play that dont look like super mario brothers.
When counting unique unit abilities (like not doubling up on Stim or Cloak) on both starcraft 2 lotv and broodwar, the terran race has 12 unique active abilities in both games.
Zerg had equal amounts of abilities during HotS but are now 8 to 7 active abilities in favour for zerg.
edit: so far of course, they could always add more units.
◦A slow-moving harassment unit from the Gateway that can use Psionic Transfer.
What kind of descrption is this? The focus is on harassment then? Not to fond of that description, protoss need a new core unit or existing units changed. Not to say, there wont be any changes.
Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
i dont want to whine but with the ultralisk amorchange, the zerglingattackspeed buff and the marauderchange. Bio should not be viable in any matter in lategame or am i wrong? I mean there are just buffs vs nerfs and before it was even.
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
The issue I have with this change isn't as much in terms of balance, but rather in terms of missed opportunity. Look at these two things:
(1) Maurauder too good vs Zealots/Ultralisks (2) Zealots and Ultralisks are microless.
Potential fix --> Increase the microness of both of these units. Wouldn't that be a ton more fun than straight up buffing Ultralisks and nerfing the Maurader?
Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
On April 01 2015 19:49 Loccstana wrote: Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
Dude looking at balance now is completely ridiculous, you should look at the general concept. And the concept of the ultralisk being tankier is a good one, imho.
On April 01 2015 19:49 Loccstana wrote: Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
Dude looking at balance now is completely ridiculous, you should look at the general concept. And the concept of the ultralisk being tankier is a good one, imho.
All this accomplishes is to force the Cyclone against Zerg late game. This is comparble to the Ultralisk being like a Colossus that needs Vikings (Cyclones) to counter it because it hardcounters straight up bio. I don't think this microless hardcounter-logic every has worked out well.
I would have gone for a huge Ultralisk offcreep movement speed along with lower model size.
On April 01 2015 19:48 SpecKROELLchen wrote: where was an marauder good vs zealots in the past? ...
Marauders were always good vs zealots,if you didnt mean it ironically.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
The issue I have with this change isn't as much in terms of balance, but rather in terms of missed opportunity. Look at these two things:
(1) Maurauder too good vs Zealots/Ultralisks (2) Zealots and Ultralisks are microless.
Potential fix --> Increase the microness of both of these units. Wouldn't that be a ton more fun than straight up buffing Ultralisks and nerfing the Maurader?
Yes but it is a difficult situation, how exactly do you make Ultras more microable? If you give them movement speed buff they would be disgusting on creep in my opinion and you also have to make them not blockable by Zerglings which will create Protoss-like death balls.
I agree that Blizzard is known for overdoing things, they have done that a lot in the past. If they need to buff one or nerf another unit, they do both at the same which essentially makes one of them useless. Perhaps Ultras shouldn't get an armor buff but something else. That being said, it was also pretty stupid how Zergs spend a ton of resources to make Ultralisks just to watch all of them to die to few Widow Mines and bunch of Marauders that dance left and right.
On April 01 2015 19:49 Loccstana wrote: Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
Dude looking at balance now is completely ridiculous, you should look at the general concept. And the concept of the ultralisk being tankier is a good one, imho.
All this accomplishes is to force the Cyclone against Zerg late game. I would compare this as the Ultralisk being like a Colossus that needs Vikings (Cyclones) to counter it because it hardcounters straight up bio. I don't think this microless hardcounter-logic every has worked out well.
I would have gone for a huge Ultralisk offcreep movement speed along with lower model size.
I think the general concept of getting different units for different opponent units is great, though it's true that it might be hardcountering too much at this point. But given that the meta has not yet to be established I think it's hard to really judge that.
In general, though, I like the sound of TvZ not being about Terran having Bio all game long.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
Okay seems like you are not much into the game. Go for some unittestmap and let some chargelots fight vs marauder. Or let some not chargedlots tank vs marauder. They wont die. And that was always the concept of pvt in hots and it was fine. Maruader good vs stalker buildings etc. but bad vs light units. And please think about 2 attacks and 1 attack and amor. You will get it fast i guess.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
It isn't same... now you count Armor 2 times.
Ultralisk has 8 armor, old Marauder without upgrades would do (20-8) = 12 damage to Ultralisks, new Marauder is doing(2x(10-8)) = 4 damage to Ultralisks, that is pretty fucking big if you ask me.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
Are you a troll or actually being serious? Do you under how armor works? Each attack gets reduced by the armor amount. So tell me, how does 2 attacks with halved damage deal with the same damage as a single attack.
On April 01 2015 19:48 SpecKROELLchen wrote: where was an marauder good vs zealots in the past? ...
Marauders were always good vs zealots,if you didnt mean it ironically.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
Are you a troll or actually being serious? Do you under how armor works? Each attack gets reduced by the armor amount. So tell me, how does 2 attacks with halved damage deal with the same damage as a single attack.
No one can be this ignorant of the game.
Dude, calm down. You can explain that without telling him how ignorant he is.
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes.
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes.
Counter to immortals was and will always be the marine for terran .
You build immortals to kill marauders, not the other way around.
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes.
Maybe the new terran unit thats not even in the beta yet?
On April 01 2015 19:48 SpecKROELLchen wrote: where was an marauder good vs zealots in the past? ...
Marauders were always good vs zealots,if you didnt mean it ironically.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
Okay seems like you are not much into the game. Go for some unittestmap and let some chargelots fight vs marauder. Or let some not chargedlots tank vs marauder. They wont die. And that was always the concept of pvt in hots and it was fine. Maruader good vs stalker buildings etc. but bad vs light units. And please think about 2 attacks and 1 attack and amor. You will get it fast i guess.
I was saying that marauders vs zealots(without charge) where you can kite them endlessly. But yeah they are weak vs chargelots. And I didnt think about the armors. Good point.
On April 01 2015 19:49 Loccstana wrote: Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
Dude looking at balance now is completely ridiculous, you should look at the general concept. And the concept of the ultralisk being tankier is a good one, imho.
All this accomplishes is to force the Cyclone against Zerg late game. I would compare this as the Ultralisk being like a Colossus that needs Vikings (Cyclones) to counter it because it hardcounters straight up bio. I don't think this microless hardcounter-logic every has worked out well.
I would have gone for a huge Ultralisk offcreep movement speed along with lower model size.
I think the general concept of getting different units for different opponent units is great, though it's true that it might be hardcountering too much at this point. But given that the meta has not yet to be established I think it's hard to really judge that.
In general, though, I like the sound of TvZ not being about Terran having Bio all game long.
I actually think several different units should be viable in several different situations. But each unit should allow for different type of playstyles. This is kind of what (from an overall perspectively) I like the idea that you could go 4M or you could opt for Siege tank + bio. Neither style should hardcounter another style, both are microintensive and rewards micro and the enemy has to react differently to both of them.
This is why I very much dislike Blizzards philosophy of there only being one answer in certain situations. That doesn't reward more strategic diversity. In fact, it's the opposite as the optimal decision is almost always obvious.
Yes but it is a difficult situation, how exactly do you make Ultras more microable? If you give them movement speed buff they would be disgusting on creep in my opinion and you also have to make them not blockable by Zerglings which will create Protoss-like death balls.
The movement speed would mostly be a an off-creep buff. If anything I am in favor of nerfing their core stats slightly to make the movement speed buff even more signifciant. In my opinion, it's not good design if kiting is all you do vs Ultralisks. When you play (as a ranged mobile unit) against a meele unit w/ slow movement speed + very strong core stats --> You are gonna kite all day, and that's what I would like to change.
Moreover, when the Ultralisks are faster (and smaller model size) it also becomes more practical to pull Ultralisks back if they are low on HP (which adds for more micro opportunities).
On April 01 2015 19:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
The Marauder change is among the best changes they did.
And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes.
Yeah, you would actually need to make something else instead of pure bio.
Marauders never were clear counter to Immortals though, when Protoss ball of death comes you certainly won't be focusing Immortals when there are Colossi, Stalkers, HTs, Archons and Zealots in the mix.
This is beta, things will change every few weeks(if we follow the HotS beta procedure) and we still have to see new Terran unit that isn't released yet. If you just look at the current stats a lot of crap is broken but I am not worried at all.
On April 01 2015 19:48 SpecKROELLchen wrote: where was an marauder good vs zealots in the past? ...
Marauders were always good vs zealots,if you didnt mean it ironically.
On April 01 2015 12:41 Loccstana wrote: Revert the MARAUDER change now. This breaks not only TvZ, but also TvP. Enjoying taking 500 hits to kill Ultras and Zealots. Blizzard and their silly changes...
I see no difference in Marauder. They are giving 2 shots in same time and each of them with halved damage. So its basically same as nowm just with different animation.
Okay seems like you are not much into the game. Go for some unittestmap and let some chargelots fight vs marauder. Or let some not chargedlots tank vs marauder. They wont die. And that was always the concept of pvt in hots and it was fine. Maruader good vs stalker buildings etc. but bad vs light units. And please think about 2 attacks and 1 attack and amor. You will get it fast i guess.
I was saying that marauders vs zealots(without charge) where you can kite them endlessly. But yeah they are weak vs chargelots. And I didnt think about the armors. Good point.
Ok, you put a nice end to the discussion, so lets move on to the next points ;D
I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter.
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
On April 01 2015 19:49 Loccstana wrote: Full upgraded Ultras not have 8 armor. Fully upgraded Marauders deal 13 x 2 against armored. Now they deal 10 damage against Ultras, compared to before, they did 20 damage. Marines did 3 damage to ultras, now they deal 1.
Add in zergling adrenal glands, late game TvZ is dead -_-. Expect more one sideness than with the old broodlord infestor.
Dude looking at balance now is completely ridiculous, you should look at the general concept. And the concept of the ultralisk being tankier is a good one, imho.
All this accomplishes is to force the Cyclone against Zerg late game. I would compare this as the Ultralisk being like a Colossus that needs Vikings (Cyclones) to counter it because it hardcounters straight up bio. I don't think this microless hardcounter-logic every has worked out well.
I would have gone for a huge Ultralisk offcreep movement speed along with lower model size.
I think the general concept of getting different units for different opponent units is great, though it's true that it might be hardcountering too much at this point. But given that the meta has not yet to be established I think it's hard to really judge that.
In general, though, I like the sound of TvZ not being about Terran having Bio all game long.
I actually think several different units should be viable in several different situations. But each unit should allow for different type of playstyles. This is kind of what (from an overall perspectively) I like the idea that you could go 4M or you could opt for Siege tank + bio. Neither style should hardcounter another style, both are microintensive and rewards micro and the enemy has to react differently to both of them.
I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth. I mean we have these "cross counters" where you get marines to fight zerglings, banelings to fight marines, tanks to fight banelings, medivacs to assist and mutalisks to counter medivacs etc.
Those units are viable in many situations, but due to their "hardcountering" nature they arejust really good in certain scenarios and create great dynamic between different unit compositions.
For example, if Ultras are now hardcountering the Terran standard bio force and force Terran to get different units, if the hardcounter to those units is something different by zerg(pulling an example out of my ass: Cyclones, answer from Zerg is Zerglings) this could create games with lots and lots of tech switches and reacting/scouting constantly.
I hope you get what I mean. Hardcounters are definitely something that can be awesome, if done right.
Though only having hardcounters isn't right either. I think Brood War had a perfect mix, actually. Some units were just outright bad against certain other units, but often times they were just "less effective", but still viable.
Maybe they just want to test the marauderchange out for one week or so. its their right and i see no problem there. But i think, why? marauder was to me, always fine (just too good vs ultralisks) but this should be almost solved with the amor. mb nerf a little bit more against massive (ok that would make collossi better) or something like that. But as some here said. lets not get too angry. Its the first day of the beta :D :D :D
On April 01 2015 20:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: Maybe they just want to test the marauderchange out for one week or so. its their right and i see no problem there. But i think, why? marauder was to me, always fine (just too good vs ultralisks) but this should be almost solved with the amor. mb nerf a little bit more against massive (ok that would make collossi better) or something like that. But as some here said. lets not get too angry. Its the first day of the beta :D :D :D
Maybe they want to get away from Bio being a/the only late game composition for Terran and this change is part of that? The numbers will of course not be right from the beginning.
The new Marauder vs Ultralisk interaction is a way for introducing actual transitioning into Terran. They don't want to see the same Bio composition the entire game. However maybe the new Terran unit needs to also be an answer to Ultralisks to balance this out.
It is the same reason I see why they introduced Hercs, a way to force Zerg out of Ling/Bane/Muta.
The reality of the Marauder change is that in HotS Marauders (cheap, supply-light T1/1.5 units) shit hard on Ultralisks (expensive, supply-heavy T3 units), and that's not normal. However yeah Ultra vs Marauders look a bit Ultra favored atm, it may be good to change some numbers.
I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio
The truth is that you already answered your own question.
I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth.
But my point is that if you have a game of hardcounters then it becomes a game of obvious decisions. You build Colossus --> I build Vikings...
How is that skill? How is that strategic depht?
If on the other hand, you have a variety of units to choose between, but they rewarded different playstyles and the enemy had to react differently to those playstyles, you would have a much more interesting game (strategically speaking).
For example, if Ultras are now hardcountering the Terran standard bio force and force Terran to get different units, if the hardcounter to those units is something different by zerg(pulling an example out of my !@#$%^&*: Cyclones, answer from Zerg is Zerglings) this could create games with lots and lots of tech switches and reacting/scouting constantly.
Well, so there is a difference between soft-counter and hard-counter. Not having a hardcounter doesn't imply that certain units shouldn't be better against other units. Rather it implies that you can stay at a certain composition for a period of time - even if the enemy builds the soft counter. Like against High Templars, you can stay at bio and delay ghost tech and instead have more map control in the midgame. This way you rely more on splitting micro than spamming-ability micro during engagements as well.
It's definitely important that we don't have one composition being good vs everything, but it's also equally important that there only exsists one (viable) answer to each scenario.
I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth.
But my point is that if you have a game of hardcounters then it becomes a game of obvious decisions. You build Colossus --> I build Vikings...
How is that skill? How is that strategic depht?
If on the other hand, you have a variety of units to choose between, but they rewarded different playstyles and the enemy had to react differently to those playstyles, you would have a much more interesting game (strategically speaking).
How would you implement something like that? I mean in the end it's an RTS and you can only do so many things with units before you reach mechanical limit.
It sounds utopic and implementing "hardcounters"(should be "harder counters") like in BW seems much more practical.
How would you implement something like that? I mean in the end it's an RTS and you can only do so many things with units before you reach mechanical limit.
Okay, this requires a small essay and I imagine changes that would change a lot of stuff around (but that's also kinda what is needed in LOTV imo). I be back with it in a moment.
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler +
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about.
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler +
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about.
SK terran was the same way. And it was just fine, albeit science vessels are much fun than thors. It also had more synergy with the guerrilla style tactics of bio play as well.
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler +
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about.
SK terran was the same way. And it was just fine, albeit science vessels are much fun than thors.
Vessels were far more pivotal. Unlike in sc2 where any additional unit is just optional. Plus, tanks played major role too.
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler +
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about.
SK terran was the same way. And it was just fine, albeit science vessels are much fun than thors.
Vessels were far more pivotal. Unlike in sc2 where any additional unit is just optional. Plus, tanks played major role too.
SK terran is a tank less style. In sc2 when the muta cloud reaches a certain level you kind of have to add in thors.
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
Yeah i got that same impression (don't have the beta either though)
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
Nathanias said you pretty much have to open with a quick cyclone in TvP because of adepts.
So far I really hate warp prism long range pick up too. Making an already strong harass tool even stronger for little to no reason. I'm more OK with siege tanks picked up, though I think they should lose siege mode when picked up.
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
Nathanias said you pretty much have to open with a quick cyclone in TvP because of adepts.
Yeah people seem to systematically wall their main ramp while getting a quick cyclone. It's not like a quick cyclone isn't a good thing to get early game though.
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
It's strong pvp, awful in pvz, only good vs reaper expand in pvt
On April 01 2015 21:02 [PkF] Wire wrote: So far I really hate warp prism long range pick up too. Making an already strong harass tool even stronger for little to no reason. I'm more OK with siege tanks picked up, though I think they should lose siege mode when picked up.
Yep like in starbow. If they wanted to increase its mobility they could have increased movement speed in tank mode and decreased the unsiege time. To me the unit lost its identity and character. Its no longer a siege tank, its a reaver.
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
Nathanias said you pretty much have to open with a quick cyclone in TvP because of adepts.
Yeah people seem to systematically wall their main ramp while getting a quick cyclone. It's not like a quick cyclone isn't a good thing to get early game though.
Yeah, but I also haven't seen him transition into bio from that. He plays hellion/cyclone heavy mech TvP mostly, at least atm.
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler +
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder.
Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling.
Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it.
Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst.
If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted.
4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about.
SK terran was the same way. And it was just fine, albeit science vessels are much fun than thors. It also had more synergy with the guerrilla style tactics of bio play as well.
Though SK Terran is quite map+game dependent if you want to go beyond the mid game with NaDa style pure medic marine science vessels which usually gets rolled over by the late game unless if you have a very nice advantage denying gas against zerg's tech transition to ultralisks and other late game units which literally roll through pure bio, even with tank support.
Though terran is extremely flexible thus they could do multiple types of mixed bio-mech/star port compositions I.e Valkyrie opening, wraiths, or you can open with vultures combined with marines then transition to usual mech play, open up with mech, or do a mass transition to mech from bio once map control is gained through use of early bio pressure, or do a weird switch from mech to bio (I think it was a leta vs jaedong game which showcased that) technically you could go with battle cruisers like feh vs savior lol. Iloveoov once said iirc that the entire zerg strategy is dictated on what the terran does with factories (Or was it the timing of the factories?).
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
It's strong pvp, awful in pvz, only good vs reaper expand in pvt
On April 01 2015 20:45 [PkF] Wire wrote: Anyone else thinking the adept would feel more interesting if the teleport time was a bit shorter ?
YES, so far the adept didn't look very usefull
I saw a few games where rushing some adepts shut down reaper expands pretty hard, but other than that the unit feels quite underwhelming, borderline useless. I haven't played with it myself ofc, that's just my impression from watching streams.
It's strong pvp, awful in pvz, only good vs reaper expand in pvt
Can you scout reliably with the shade in PvP ?
You can reliably rush 2-4 (think of the old double gate before cor stalker builds) and kill like 5 probes with them. The hilarious part is when your opponent does the same.
So yeah, you can get in his base and see what he's up to >.>
wow mass cyclones really ruins the screen even more than tempests with their range indicators. I get they're useful, but the screen really feel overloaded.
I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio
The truth is that you already answered your own question.
I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth.
But my point is that if you have a game of hardcounters then it becomes a game of obvious decisions. You build Colossus --> I build Vikings...
How is that skill? How is that strategic depht?
If on the other hand, you have a variety of units to choose between, but they rewarded different playstyles and the enemy had to react differently to those playstyles, you would have a much more interesting game (strategically speaking).
How would you implement something like that? I mean in the end it's an RTS and you can only do so many things with units before you reach mechanical limit.
It sounds utopic and implementing "hardcounters"(should be "harder counters") like in BW seems much more practical.
Okay, so I am gonna focus this post on the changes that relates to Air vs terran (mostly mech). I both discuss micro interactons and the roels the unit serves at various points in time (warning: Long post).
Void Ray - Much more HP/Shield - Range reduced to 4 - Movement speed reduced to 1.9 with lower acceleration value - Upgrade at fleet beacon increases movement speed and acceleration of VR to 2.25 (and also makes Tempest faster). - Damage slightly reduced - Range slop reduced from 2 to 0.4 (this is the value that means you VR beam keeps targetting you even if you run out of the attack range) - Its activation ability deals more damage but duration much lower
Effect - Marines can now micro by pulling back the targetted Marines vs the VR beam - VRs are the short-range/immobile air unit in the protoss arsenal (all other air units are relatively mobile). They will therefore synergize with the other air units during an engagement. - Void Rays, however, are pretty bad alone since they easily can be outmicroed. - Its activation ability now has more counterplay since the enemy is further extra punished for not moving away while its activated, but you can easier move out of range and go back once the duration has ended. - Needs 3 widow Mine shots to die, but VR cannot outrange them.
Widow Mine - Starting movement increased to 3.1 (so it can catch up to Tempest: see below). - Projectile speed significantly reduced (especially vs air). - Splash damage AOE increased - Each armor attack upgrade increases the range of the Widow Mine attack by 1 - 80 HP - Burrow/unburrow duration reduced to 0.5 from 1 second
Effect: - Playing against Widow Mines has more counterplay since you can split after the Mine has gone off (due to projectile being alot slower) - Moreover - due to the extra countermicro, you are punished slightly further if you do not split at all. - Late game it has a lot more utility due to its higher range which means you can no longer a-move over mines in the late game with any compositions. (note that zealots here receives ability to drag mines alot better and Colossus does not have over 9 range). - There is more counterplay against an enemy that tries to drag mines as you can easier unburrow and burrow them.
Viking - 7.5 range - Much faster transformation between ground and air. - In ground mode: 10 range, very slow movement speed, less HP - More damage vs light and less damage vs armored (Collosus balanced around not being vulnerable to AA FYI) - Moving shot - 2.65 movement speed - Upgrade at techlab that increases movement speed to 3.4 (and it also increases the movement speed of Banshee's).
Effect: - Viking deals more damage vs Orace/Phoenix but both are faster and can therefore abuse mobility (at least in the early/early midgame). - Void Rays can be kited but Vikings deal very low damage to them - Viking worse vs Carrier/Tempest which opens up a role for the Thor (see below). - Vikings better vs Mutalisks. Can kite but not infinitively, even w/ movement speed upgrade (but okay, this was intended to be focussed on PvT). - Vikings are not the most cost-effective unit, but still do decently and has lots of utility in terms of harass play. You can use your hellbats as meat shield when harassing and have Vikings as the damage dealer in the back.
Thor - Splash damage nerfed and instead its AOE size has been increased (overall this is a nerf unless the enemy heavily masses light air units). - AA vs armored mode is maintained and heavily buffed - Upgrade at Factory tech lab that makes it possbible to transform instantly between the two modes. - 0 damage point (can attack without needing to stand still for a while).
Effect: - Weak vs Oracles in low numbers or against a protoss player that splits up his Oracles. - The Thor is now the cost-effective unit you want vs Tempest and Carriers. - Thors are still useful as a support vs Mutalisks, and it could have a similar role as Irradiate in BW in terms of keeping the zerg in check so he doesn't overmass Mutalisks - Due to it having 0 damage point and higher range in AA vs light, it's also decent for drop harass.
Oracle - 6 range - Slightly less shield/HP - 4 movement speed - 50% less DPS vs light - Lower atttack speed - Moving shot (that implies max turn rate, no damage point) - Lower energy cost for activing pulsor beam (or no energy cost at all).
Effect: - 4 marines > 1 oracle if amoved, but Oracles can move in and out for moving shot to kill alot more Marines. Oracles also kills workers alot shower. - Widow Mine oneshots it, but Oracle can outrange Widow mine and detect it.
Tempest: - Can be build from tier 2 - Starting movement speed : 2. - Speed upgrade at Fleet beacon increases movement speed to 2.75 - Range = 8 - 0 damage point (so it can attack and move back more easily) - No extra damage vs massive - Attack speed significantly increased (much higher DPS)
Effect - Due to being tier 2, you can get the them for early harass purposes. Marines can be kited, but will slowly catch up (so don't overextend) - Synergizes with Oracles as it can outrange Turrets which makes your Oracle better at harassing. - Trades evenly w/ Vikings. So getting Vikings as a soft counter is an option, but only if the terran takes advantage of the Vikings harass potential. However, if the toss has VRs to soak up the damage, the toss wins the engagement (but then you become even less mobile). - Late game this is a strong harass option vs ground-based mech since Thors are quite immobile and turret lines can be broken. - In the early game, Widow Mines will try to catch up to the Tempests and burrow under them. Since Tempests (without speed upgrade) are slow, WMs will relatively quickly catch up, so be careful not to overextend here. On the other hand, you can shoot and kite better.
Carrier - HP of each interceptor has been reduced significantly and its balanced around that - The density of each interceptor has been increased (so they are more vulnerable to splash). - Carrier now has up to 12 interceptors, but only starts with 8. - Range increased to 9.5 - The time it takes for interceptors to go off has been reduced significantly. - Acceleration increased to be similar to movement speed (1.93 roughly).
Effect: - Thors are marginally cost-effective vs Carriers if they focus fire (while Carriers move back), but can become even more effective if you pull back injured Thors and transform them into splash-mode and use them to kill interceptors from a safe distance. - Vikings < Carriers, but are more mobiile - Widow Mines can be useful vs interceptor splash, but on the other hand Carriers can outrange +3 Mines, and if you have the bank to trade interceptors for Widow Mines, this is doable as protoss. - Is less mobile than the Tempest (after speed upgrade) but overall stronger in most engagements.
TLDR; So lots of changes and I didn't even discuss implications for other matchups. But it should be possible to see that none of the units mentioned here sucks against either unit. Thor? Yeh it can hold off light Oracle harass, but it's not cost efficient if the toss micros well. So you will often need need to repair it once Oracles attack it, which can be costly. Therefore it is a good idea to mix in Marines along with the Thor. Or you could get a Viking, but a Viking is kinda immobile and can only chase the Oracle away. That's at least until you have speed upgrade and then you can start to apply pressure to the enemy through the ground-transformation
Widow Mine: An option vs all protoss air units, but all of them also has counterplay against it (except VR that just can tank it).
Wanna go for a strong protoss air army that can win engagements? Ok then you probably wanna get VRs and Tempests and mix in Carriers later game and perhaps an Oracle for detection. Wanna go for a mobile harass oriented toss air unit? Ok then you go Oracle w/ some Phoenix. If he responds by getting thors, and you don't feel confident in further relying on mobility, then you can start to mix in some VRs and use that activation beam on the Thor. The terran can then micro by transforming into the AA vs armored-mode and either kill the VR of move out of the beam-range (since VRs are slower than Thors in AA vs armored-mode).
So lots of options here, and so many opportunites for micro, and it's kinda why I see so many missed opportunites for Blizzard here.
I predict that Koreans will dominate LotV way more than HotS (maybe even like they did in BW) because the new economy gives you a large bank of mins in a just a couple of minutes. Only Koreans master the multitasking needed to spend mins and fight at the same time. On the other hand the 12 starting workers will lead to weaker players using almost always allins to win. It will be interesting if Blizzard can or will fix this with upcoming patches.
On April 01 2015 21:58 TurboMaN wrote: I predict that Koreans will dominate LotV way more than HotS (maybe even like they did in BW) because the new economy gives you a large bank of mins in a just a couple of mins. Only Koreans master the multitasking needed to spend mins and fight at the same time. On the other hand the 12 starting workers will lead to weaker players play solely strong allins. It will be interesting if Blizzard can or will fix this with upcoming patches.
On April 01 2015 21:58 TurboMaN wrote: I predict that Koreans will dominate LotV way more than HotS (maybe even like they did in BW) because the new economy gives you a large bank of mins in a just a couple of minutes. Only Koreans master the multitasking needed to spend mins and fight at the same time. On the other hand the 12 starting workers will lead to weaker players using almost always allins to win. It will be interesting if Blizzard can or will fix this with upcoming patches.
I'm confident that foreigners will be able to at least keep their level relative to koreans, remember a lot of the macro is easier than it was in BW still, just the amount you have to build is getting bigger practically.
@Hider:
Thanks for that post, I'll address it once I have time to thoroughly read it. A little stressed at work atm!
I got to see quite a few games when someone was facing a lot of cyclones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually range indicators show for the player controlling the unit, not the one facing it (siege tank, tempest...). Here it seems cyclones show their range indicator to everyone. It's really awkward and makes the screen really messy.
I genuinely wish there would be an option to customize range indicators.
I did some playing around in the unit tester - mass cyclone beats just about everything - zerglings, marauders, etc., often without any micro required. A few things it didn't beat: -Void Ray (only if charge is activated and the cyclones don't micro back) -Immortals -Lurkers (again if not micro'd back)
Has anyone figured out how to counter mass cyclone compositions? Seems like as Protoss you would have to go mass immortal, but what about Zerg?
On April 01 2015 22:01 pieroog wrote: 40% Adrenal Glands, Marauder double attack and 20% Colossus' dmg reduction changes are very huge!
Ultras with 8 armor is also quite big change, Infestor getting Neural Parasite back to 9 range is amazing.
But yeah, can't wait to see Cracklings eating things like they did in BW... Blizzard has finally realized that they need to be more than a cannon fodder later in the game.
On April 01 2015 22:12 Yamato wrote: I did some playing around in the unit tester - mass cyclone beats just about everything - zerglings, marauders, etc., often without any micro required. A few things it didn't beat: -Void Ray (only if charge is activated and the cyclones don't micro back) -Immortals -Lurkers (again if not micro'd back)
Has anyone figured out how to counter mass cyclone compositions? Seems like as Protoss you would have to go mass immortal, but what about Zerg?
I don't get why immortals are so good against cyclones. From what I gathered Incontrol chose double robo immortals to beat cyclones and did so pretty convincingly. Can someone explain what makes that slow relatively short range unit that good against the crazy kiter ?
On April 01 2015 22:12 Yamato wrote: I did some playing around in the unit tester - mass cyclone beats just about everything - zerglings, marauders, etc., often without any micro required. A few things it didn't beat: -Void Ray (only if charge is activated and the cyclones don't micro back) -Immortals -Lurkers (again if not micro'd back)
Has anyone figured out how to counter mass cyclone compositions? Seems like as Protoss you would have to go mass immortal, but what about Zerg?
Fungals beat them pretty badly though, coupled with any combination of fast units.
On April 01 2015 22:12 Yamato wrote: I did some playing around in the unit tester - mass cyclone beats just about everything - zerglings, marauders, etc., often without any micro required. A few things it didn't beat: -Void Ray (only if charge is activated and the cyclones don't micro back) -Immortals -Lurkers (again if not micro'd back)
Has anyone figured out how to counter mass cyclone compositions? Seems like as Protoss you would have to go mass immortal, but what about Zerg?
Fungals beat them pretty badly though, coupled with any combination of fast units.
That makes sense in small numbers, but when I was testing in mass the cyclones didn't need to micro at all - they could beat zerglings, roaches, hydras, ravagers, mutas, etc. straight up. The only one they didn't beat other than lurkers was mass baneling.
On April 01 2015 21:58 TurboMaN wrote: I predict that Koreans will dominate LotV way more than HotS (maybe even like they did in BW) because the new economy gives you a large bank of mins in a just a couple of minutes. Only Koreans master the multitasking needed to spend mins and fight at the same time. On the other hand the 12 starting workers will lead to weaker players using almost always allins to win. It will be interesting if Blizzard can or will fix this with upcoming patches.
I'm confident that foreigners will be able to at least keep their level relative to koreans, remember a lot of the macro is easier than it was in BW still, just the amount you have to build is getting bigger practically.
As it's looking, it seems like LotV could become an even harder game than BW. It still needs time to develop though, one of the reasons BW got hard is because of 12+ years of learning and mastering the game. Foreigners doing reasonably well in SC2 also has something to do with the foreign scene being a lot stronger, imagine if the entire EU scene was playing WC4 that would have a large impact on how well we'd do.
Tank harass is interesting. I've always thought that when a medivac carries a unit that takes up its entire cargo space (tank/thor), it should not be able to boost. I feel that may balance out better.
LotV beta is an improvement from HotS, but I just wish SC2 armies were larger. On top of inflated unit supply costs, so much supply is put into workers. T_T
On April 01 2015 23:28 [PkF] Wire wrote: Do we have any idea of the frequency at which the game will get patched in the first weeks ? How was it in HotS ?
We got big patches every 1-2 weeks, it was pretty fast.
On April 01 2015 23:28 [PkF] Wire wrote: Do we have any idea of the frequency at which the game will get patched in the first weeks ? How was it in HotS ?
We got big patches every 1-2 weeks, it was pretty fast.
But now we are going to have a very beta, consider that. I think that it is a good time to take things slowly.
Except Ravager. Blizzcon Ravager was far better. Stats were very Roach-like. Now you have an inmense Roach with a Crown that has only 120HP and is glass cannon.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
On April 01 2015 23:36 purakushi wrote: Cyclone sounds way too much like the raven. The mechanical voice of the raven was always distinct to itself. I think it is just Blizzard being lazy ;;
It is literally just using the Raven sounds as a placeholder. Even the lock-on uses the HSM lock-on sound.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
That reminds me of some units that terran has...
I'm not here to balance whine I find it really fun to watch. The explosion caused by the Disruptor seems very, very satisfying.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
Like Reaver drops. Also, Tank Drops are now much more like Reaver Drops were in BW but they are quite hard to counter as Zerg though.
Stephano just played great game against meching Terran, he was using Swarm Hosts and Lings only and harassed the crap out of Terran, he couldn't keep up with flying Locusts and Lings attacking everywhere. Then Terran did final push with Hellbats and Tanks and Stephano switched to 20+ Mutalisks. Definitely like new Swarm Hosts more than old ones.
On April 01 2015 23:36 purakushi wrote: Cyclone sounds way too much like the raven. The mechanical voice of the raven was always distinct to itself. I think it is just Blizzard being lazy ;;
It is literally just using the Raven sounds as a placeholder. Even the lock-on uses the HSM lock-on sound.
They spent so much time for doing 6 models and animate them? Pretty much the only thing that is trully new to LOTV is the Adept.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
Like Reaver drops. Also, Tank Drops are now much more like Reaver Drops were in BW but they are quite hard to counter as Zerg though.
Stephano just played great game against meching Terran, he was using Swarm Hosts and Lings only and harassed the crap out of Terran, he couldn't keep up with flying Locusts and Lings attacking everywhere. Then Terran did final push with Hellbats and Tanks and Stephano switched to 20+ Mutalisks. Definitely like new Swarm Hosts more than old ones.
Do queens not work well against tank drops? It may be Zergs now need to worry a bit more about creeping their entire base to let Queens be mobile for defense instead of immediately trying to spread it agressively. Dunno. Seems like the tanks wouldn't do enough damage (to the Queen) to get too much worth if the queens only focus on the medivac.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
That reminds me of some units that terran has...
I'm not here to balance whine I find it really fun to watch. The explosion caused by the Disruptor seems very, very satisfying.
Except if you whiff, or don't one-shot everything, you throw away 300 gas
But...yeah, seeing it evaporate a bunch of units in an eye-blink is *incredibly* satisfying to watch hahahahaha
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
That reminds me of some units that terran has...
I'm not here to balance whine I find it really fun to watch. The explosion caused by the Disruptor seems very, very satisfying.
Except if you whiff, or don't one-shot everything, you throw away 300 gas
But...yeah, seeing it evaporate a bunch of units in an eye-blink is *incredibly* satisfying to watch hahahahaha
It looked like you could get in and get out relatively safe. It appears since Vikings aren't so required in the matchup at the moment (this may change, dunno) it makes prism harass easier since the Terran doesn't have 6+ Vikings sitting around. With the ability to load at a distance it felt like Cyclones couldn't really deal with the Prism that well.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
Like Reaver drops. Also, Tank Drops are now much more like Reaver Drops were in BW but they are quite hard to counter as Zerg though.
Stephano just played great game against meching Terran, he was using Swarm Hosts and Lings only and harassed the crap out of Terran, he couldn't keep up with flying Locusts and Lings attacking everywhere. Then Terran did final push with Hellbats and Tanks and Stephano switched to 20+ Mutalisks. Definitely like new Swarm Hosts more than old ones.
Do queens not work well against tank drops? It may be Zergs now need to worry a bit more about creeping their entire base to let Queens be mobile for defense instead of immediately trying to spread it agressively. Dunno. Seems like the tanks wouldn't do enough damage (to the Queen) to get too much worth if the queens only focus on the medivac.
The thing is you aren't getting close to the Queens for them to be able to shoot. For example, you do dual Medivac Tank drops, you drop 2 Tanks and shoot once at the Queen, get them back and kite the Queen(s), abuse the cliffs, chokes, their own sim city etc.
One Tank drop isn't that scary, but when you do more it gets pretty brutal, I've seen Nathanias completely demolish some Zergs with 3 Medivac + 3 Tanks.
About Adepts, I didn't really like the idea that much the first time I've seen the unit and first thing that crossed my mind was "Protoss Reaper!" and people currently really play out with them like that... Make 1-2 early for scouting and harassing and that is about it. They cost too much, are way too slow(without shade) and attack slowly even though they have solid damage. They do great against light units and get destroyed by armored and air units. I think that they will change them pretty soon, it just doesn't do much.
Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
On April 02 2015 00:16 Response wrote: Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
LeZael had a really good idea about the Disruptor, to make it more unique. I believe it was something like, the disruptor only deals damage when he is moving.
On April 02 2015 00:18 Magggrig wrote: are the changes to the collosus real?
I think that they do this primarily to make people use the disruptor instead, it will probably get reduced for the final game?
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
That reminds me of some units that terran has...
Oh, and it did not remind you about storm drop as well?
On April 02 2015 00:16 Response wrote: Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
LeZael had a really good idea about the Disruptor, to make it more unique. I believe it was something like, the disruptor only deals damage when he is moving.
On April 02 2015 00:18 Magggrig wrote: are the changes to the collosus real?
I think that they do this primarily to make people use the disruptor instead, it will probably get reduced for the final game?
I fail to see what only dealing damage while moving would change. If the opponent is reacting you're moving anyway and if he's not you can just spam move commands near the disruptor.
On April 02 2015 00:21 PrideSc2 wrote: I'm not sure how I feel about the disruptor at this point. I'm worried it might head down the path of the warhound.
I'm pretty sure it won't. The concept is interesting, the numbers could be tweaked but I'm ready to bet the final version will have a disruptor that'll be pretty close concept wise to what we have now.
I wouldn't say the same about the ravager, the adept and the cyclone. I could see all those units going through big changes during the beta and ending up being quite different.
On April 02 2015 00:16 Response wrote: Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
LeZael had a really good idea about the Disruptor, to make it more unique. I believe it was something like, the disruptor only deals damage when he is moving.
On April 02 2015 00:18 Magggrig wrote: are the changes to the collosus real?
I think that they do this primarily to make people use the disruptor instead, it will probably get reduced for the final game?
I fail to see what only dealing damage while moving would change. If the opponent is reacting you're moving anyway and if he's not you can just spam move commands near the disruptor.
Well I'll quote his post :
- Better version of the Disruptor - High skill involved , high reward. - Creates interesting micro battles. - Has multiple functions , can harass workers , provides map and area control. - Less one-shot-wonders hits like the disruptor. - Introduces new mechanics with a controllable - Reduces enemy splash units power.
On April 02 2015 00:16 Response wrote: Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
LeZael had a really good idea about the Disruptor, to make it more unique. I believe it was something like, the disruptor only deals damage when he is moving.
On April 02 2015 00:18 Magggrig wrote: are the changes to the collosus real?
I think that they do this primarily to make people use the disruptor instead, it will probably get reduced for the final game?
I fail to see what only dealing damage while moving would change. If the opponent is reacting you're moving anyway and if he's not you can just spam move commands near the disruptor.
- Better version of the Disruptor - High skill involved , high reward. - Creates interesting micro battles. - Has multiple functions , can harass workers , provides map and area control. - Less one-shot-wonders hits like the disruptor. - Introduces new mechanics with a controllable - Reduces enemy splash units power.
OK I get it, but it's very different. Basically a moving shredder. Not uninteresting but vastly different (and highly unpractical if it does friendly fire).
It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
On April 02 2015 00:16 Response wrote: Does anyone else find the Disruptor to just be like a less entertaining version of the reaver? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but to me it really seems like it's somehow missing something.
Honestly, the Reaver wasn't a perfectly designed unit. It was very early game specific, and typically only used in the early game (apart for some specific Corsair/Reaver/Carrier PvZ build in BW). Disruptor feels like a unit that is slightly easier to learn, but has a really high skillcap as well. Useful through all the stages of the game and lots of countermicro.
With my experience with it so far, it's by far the most awesome unit I have ever seen in an RTS.
On April 02 2015 00:27 andrewlt wrote: It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
On April 02 2015 00:27 andrewlt wrote: It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
Roaches have been nerfed?
Anything but Marauders and colossi were nerfed though.
On April 02 2015 00:27 andrewlt wrote: It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
Roaches have been nerfed?
Anything but Marauders and colossi were nerfed though.
THE ERA OF THE ROACH IS UPON US
They won't touch to the most glorious and advanced Zerg unit. It even has a cool mortar buddy now :D
Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
Ravagers are so cool :D Lurkers are good in some cases but take a bit too long to get out imo and their attack is visually unimpressive. Adepts are fun to use early on. Pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the disruptor is to play with and against. As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
On April 02 2015 00:43 Yorkie wrote: Ravagers are so cool :D Lurkers are good in some cases but take a bit too long to get out imo and their attack is visually unimpressive. Adepts are fun to use early on. Pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the disruptor is to play with and against. As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
Blizzard should bring back BW lurker burrow and attack sounds. Sound has a lot to do with the experience, and a lot of people agree that SC2, while decent, has a lot to be desired on the audio side. Units should feel powerful and unique.
It seems to me like Ravagers and Lurkers are forcing players to avoid engagements, especially in ZvP. The endless kiting and running around in circle is not very fun, but it might be just my impression. We will see.
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats support this description.
On April 02 2015 00:43 Yorkie wrote: Ravagers are so cool :D Lurkers are good in some cases but take a bit too long to get out imo and their attack is visually unimpressive. Adepts are fun to use early on. Pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the disruptor is to play with and against. As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
Blizzard should bring back BW lurker burrow and attack sounds. Sound has a lot to do with the experience, and a lot of people agree that SC2, while decent, has a lot to be desired on the audio side. Units should feel powerful and unique.
Ehhh maybe updated versions of the old sounds. A new attacking sound would go a long way for my enjoyment of the unit
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats are support this description.
So they changed it to the level I feared. Oh boy no. Another harass unit for Protoss? Why? Protoss needs a unit which is capable of supporting some GW units in small fights against bio, where you need a little bit of splash :/ Damn them, I hope beta will reveal this and they change it, but I am afraid of the result(hint - phoenixes, oracles...)
On April 02 2015 00:43 Yorkie wrote: Ravagers are so cool :D Lurkers are good in some cases but take a bit too long to get out imo and their attack is visually unimpressive. Adepts are fun to use early on. Pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the disruptor is to play with and against. As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
Blizzard should bring back BW lurker burrow and attack sounds. Sound has a lot to do with the experience, and a lot of people agree that SC2, while decent, has a lot to be desired on the audio side. Units should feel powerful and unique.
Ehhh maybe updated versions of the old sounds. A new attacking sound would go a long way for my enjoyment of the unit
Yeah, something new is fine, too. As long as it feels powerful and unique ><
On April 02 2015 00:43 Yorkie wrote: As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
People will probably laugh at me, but currently I'm not bothered as much with cyclone's supposed OPness as with their range indicators. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually the player controlling an unit sees its range indicator, not his opponent (true for tempest and siege tank I think, not for overcharge). Everytime I saw a player facing a lot of cyclones of stream the mass range indicators that appeared with the lock-ons set my teeth on edge : the screen was horribly messy. I think I already said it before, but wouldn't that be a good thing if you could customize which range indicator you see and which ones you don't see ? By the way it would probably be far more helpful to have range indicators on for the opponent for tanks than for cyclones...
On April 02 2015 00:47 TheAnarchy wrote: I want more zergs coments. Whats the new meta in zvp and zvt? How good are the lurkers in zvt? Does the ravager sux?
Not really much of a meta yet after 12 hours haha. 2 base ravager expand in ZvP is fun (can also just straight up win with 2 base ravager). Not a fan of lurkers in ZvT tbh. Ravagers most certainly do not suck though!
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats support this description.
Oh ok, looks like they changed their design goal over ~12 days but kept the same unit then.
On April 02 2015 00:43 Yorkie wrote: Ravagers are so cool :D Lurkers are good in some cases but take a bit too long to get out imo and their attack is visually unimpressive. Adepts are fun to use early on. Pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the disruptor is to play with and against. As a zerg the cyclone doesn't bother me much but it seems terrifying in TvT/TvP.
Blizzard should bring back BW lurker burrow and attack sounds. Sound has a lot to do with the experience, and a lot of people agree that SC2, while decent, has a lot to be desired on the audio side. Units should feel powerful and unique.
They aren't as terrifying in my opinión, altough they good harras they are not as strong in head to head combat if we took his cost into cosideration, its just that they took low supply.
For example a cyclone is capable going 1:1 with a tank, but this means the player with the cyclone gets the short end because cyclones are more expensive.
protoss is pretty underwhelming atm, even disruptor is just a glorified baneling, it's not very good aside from dropping it it seems, splitting against it is not too hard and once it exploded you just kill it, and it's really expensive, you can't afford to lose too many of those (not to mention they're so bad in sync with zealots it's not even funny)
On April 02 2015 01:44 ROOTFayth wrote: protoss is pretty underwhelming atm, even disruptor is just a glorified baneling, it's not very good aside from dropping it it seems, splitting against it is not too hard and once it exploded you just kill it, and it's really expensive, you can't afford to lose too many of those
saw rotterdam do some cute warp prism pick up micro with them just after detonating, but then he got destroyed by cyclone range..
Is it useful to build lurkers in ZvZ? I was initially confused about this, because Blizzard said they were primarily intending it as a ZvZ unit (supposedly to break up mass roaches), but it seems like the ravager is an effective counter that is easily accessible when building roaches. I think that if you're going to get ravagers you'll end up building a fair amount of them, which is especially viable in late-game. I don't really see how lurkers (which are a late-game unit) could have a role in ZvZ if mass roach with ravager is the norm.
On April 02 2015 01:52 virpi wrote: ravagers are soo strange. they're not very zergish, but they seem to be very fun.
I'm watching Destiny playing ZvZ and I think you can tell that good ravager use can decide engagements quite easily, so that seems like an upgrade on the existing gameplay where finding useful micro is a struggle. It seems a bit spammy though, I wish the unit was balanced in a way that it wouldn't encourage you to get too many.
I also think that the ravager might take up too much space both in the animation and the model. Whenever you cast corrosive bile it shoots up a firebolt into the sky and then has it rain down, so the entire screen is littered with these flashes in a way that's distracting for me.
On April 01 2015 23:35 Tenks wrote: This disruptor harass on Nate's stream is hilarious. Drop off the Disruptor, have it kill 8+ SCV in one swoop then just run away.
That reminds me of some units that terran has...
I'm not here to balance whine I find it really fun to watch. The explosion caused by the Disruptor seems very, very satisfying.
Except if you whiff, or don't one-shot everything, you throw away 300 gas
But...yeah, seeing it evaporate a bunch of units in an eye-blink is *incredibly* satisfying to watch hahahahaha
It looked like you could get in and get out relatively safe. It appears since Vikings aren't so required in the matchup at the moment (this may change, dunno) it makes prism harass easier since the Terran doesn't have 6+ Vikings sitting around. With the ability to load at a distance it felt like Cyclones couldn't really deal with the Prism that well.
Yeah, the more streams I watch, the more it seems like Warp Prism + Disruptor is the way to go (reminds you of the BW reaver/shuttle days). I was more referring to people trying to use Disruptors in more direct engagements.
On April 02 2015 00:21 PrideSc2 wrote: I'm not sure how I feel about the disruptor at this point. I'm worried it might head down the path of the warhound.
I'm pretty sure it won't. The concept is interesting, the numbers could be tweaked but I'm ready to bet the final version will have a disruptor that'll be pretty close concept wise to what we have now.
I wouldn't say the same about the ravager, the adept and the cyclone. I could see all those units going through big changes during the beta and ending up being quite different.
You also won't be massing the Disruptor like you would the Warhound. Not at 300 gas a pop
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats are support this description.
So they changed it to the level I feared. Oh boy no. Another harass unit for Protoss? Why? Protoss needs a unit which is capable of supporting some GW units in small fights against bio, where you need a little bit of splash :/ Damn them, I hope beta will reveal this and they change it, but I am afraid of the result(hint - phoenixes, oracles...)
Well, there is an upgrade on the Twilight council to give it some splash that kicks in on a killing blow, and they DO seem to be pretty effective against early game light units.
I wonder if maybe Blizzard should think about moving that Adept upgrade to the Cyber Core and moving Warpgate Research to the Twilight? With the Warp Gate changes essentially making Warp Gate less automatically necessary early game, perhaps it would be a good change.
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats are support this description.
So they changed it to the level I feared. Oh boy no. Another harass unit for Protoss? Why? Protoss needs a unit which is capable of supporting some GW units in small fights against bio, where you need a little bit of splash :/ Damn them, I hope beta will reveal this and they change it, but I am afraid of the result(hint - phoenixes, oracles...)
Have you tested it against marines early game? It's like Marauders to Stalkers. + you can set your retreat, being really agressive early and retreating when shields are low. Then when the shadow casts teleport you get to a safe position automatically.
It's very good early game. However the new econ benefits mass marine production too much.
On April 02 2015 03:02 pieroog wrote: a protoss' expansion that gives the most to other races (especially zergs)? changes are super cool, but toss will remain the dullest race of them all
You can't possibly compare what you get to what Terran gets.. There is like what, Cyclone? Then bunch of smaller changes to current units, some nerfs and buffs and that's it.
I feel like Protoss actualy is not in a bad spot, Disruptors and Adepts feels a bit weird and will be tweaked heavily I believe.
On April 02 2015 03:06 plotspot wrote: How is the ravager's potential to ... uh.. ravage the mineral line of your enemy? Anyone observe its usage for something like this?
Well, you are better of just let them auto attack with their 16 damage and 0.8 attack speed. Their ability doesn't have huge AoE and needs 3 seconds to land, it can miss easily especially something small like workers and even if it hits it won't be able to hit more than 1-2 workers.
On April 02 2015 03:15 purakushi wrote: There is now audio feedback when you push a button in LotV. I have always wanted this. BW has it, and the feedback just feels good.
Details matter in SC2. Blizzard needs to pay attention to more of these. This is a good start. Thank you.
From the mass amount of starcraft streams I have consumed in the past 12 hours, I've noticed many little things like this.
Only gripe is that the lurker needs to sound more....lurker-ish. I want to be afraid just by hearing it. Oh and random colors? bliz plz?
Stupid question, but i don't really get the scan range changes. Does it mean that a zerling for example will have a 0.1+0.5 scan range? I guess its only for non melee units...
On April 02 2015 03:22 JunZergCola wrote: Stupid question, but i don't really get the scan range changes. Does it mean that a zerling for example will have a 0.1+0.5 scan range?
On April 02 2015 03:15 purakushi wrote: There is now audio feedback when you push a button in LotV. I have always wanted this. BW has it, and the feedback just feels good.
Details matter in SC2. Blizzard needs to pay attention to more of these. This is a good start. Thank you.
From the mass amount of starcraft streams I have consumed in the past 12 hours, I've noticed many little things like this.
Only gripe is that the lurker needs to sound more....lurker-ish. I want to be afraid just by hearing it. Oh and random colors? bliz plz?
Yep, agreed. Burrow, death, and attack sounds need to make you feel anxious. Don't necessarily need to use the BW lurker sounds, but those are quite good. Unique and powerful audio feedback.
On April 02 2015 03:22 JunZergCola wrote: Stupid question, but i don't really get the scan range changes. Does it mean that a zerling for example will have a 0.1+0.5 scan range?
On April 02 2015 03:15 purakushi wrote: There is now audio feedback when you push a button in LotV. I have always wanted this. BW has it, and the feedback just feels good.
Details matter in SC2. Blizzard needs to pay attention to more of these. This is a good start. Thank you.
From the mass amount of starcraft streams I have consumed in the past 12 hours, I've noticed many little things like this.
Only gripe is that the lurker needs to sound more....lurker-ish. I want to be afraid just by hearing it. Oh and random colors? bliz plz?
I think a lot of current sounds and maybe even some visual effects might still be placeholders. I know the cyclone is literally using the Raven voiceset, for instance.
On April 02 2015 03:22 JunZergCola wrote: Stupid question, but i don't really get the scan range changes. Does it mean that a zerling for example will have a 0.1+0.5 scan range? I guess its only for non melee units...
It's mostly a change for ranged units, yeah. Before, a stalker would sometimes move in to range of a widow mine before attacking, despite out-ranging mines. It's basically just a change to target acquisition or target "scanning" to make range differences between units a little more reliable/consistent.
On April 02 2015 03:28 TheAnarchy wrote: I think SH is dead. Has someone seen SH being used?
Yeah, to great effect actually. It seems like a really strong harass option, a small group of SH with flying locusts can snipe buildings really quick. They seem to make for great hit and run units.
On April 02 2015 03:28 TheAnarchy wrote: I think SH is dead. Has someone seen SH being used?
Catz used them against Iaguz with solid results. They're much faster now and die quite slowly to hellions so it's tough for mech to deal with them (if used in the proper LoTV way of hit and run harassment tactics).
On April 02 2015 00:35 [PkF] Wire wrote: Who else feels like the adept would be more interesting : - without the shade that doesn't bring a lot. - with the bounce that activates when it kills something from the start. Numbers would have to be tweaked of course but it would be quite interesting to have that last hit thing that you get in MOBAs and WC3 in SC2 ; it would be important for the adept to give the last shot for it to shine the most. At least I think that'd be more interesting than that shade thing that's just another teleport.
I'm not sure if the last hit is adapted to SC2. It's mainly designed for low supply/low number of units games, and controling which unit gets the last hit on small units like marine or lings once the army supply is >30 is kinda difficult.
wouldn't it fit an unit that seems to be primarily designed to shine early game though ?
True, but I thought that Blizzard wanted to design the Adept as a core unit?
Beta patchnotes label the adept as "a slow-moving harassment unit." Its current stats are support this description.
So they changed it to the level I feared. Oh boy no. Another harass unit for Protoss? Why? Protoss needs a unit which is capable of supporting some GW units in small fights against bio, where you need a little bit of splash :/ Damn them, I hope beta will reveal this and they change it, but I am afraid of the result(hint - phoenixes, oracles...)
I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the adept were tankier and had the ability scrapped/replaced with something less powerful. Its role is pretty niche, not to mention redundant, and the premise for a new gateway unit was that it would be a "core" gateway unit, which was the language Blizzard used when they unveiled it. It's definitely not core.
On April 02 2015 03:28 TheAnarchy wrote: I think SH is dead. Has someone seen SH being used?
stephano used it
How was it?
Different, he basically tried to defend with lurkers/spinecrawlers/spores and used the swarmhosts to destroy infrastructure. Didn't watch him the whole time though, but it looked doable (and way more active)
On April 02 2015 03:28 TheAnarchy wrote: I think SH is dead. Has someone seen SH being used?
stephano used it
How was it?
He used it against Z and against T. Against Z it was mech-like game, setting spines, spores and Lurkers everywhere while harassing with Swarm Hosts. He also used some Lings, Roaches and Hydras for defense and later for push.
His game against T was a lot better showcase of what they can do. T went for mech, harassed with Hellbats and Medivac-Tank combo, Stephano made just Lings and Queens and went straight into mass Swarm Hosts, he had like 20 of them. I really liked that heavy Ling + Swarm Host style as Terran just couldn't keep up with harassment that flying Locusts and Lings can do. He crushed majority of Terran's economy and Terran went for last push with mass Tanks and Hellbats, but Stephano switched into ~20 Mutas and it was gg.
I liked them a lot actually, but they are definitely harder to use than old Swarm Hosts.
On April 02 2015 03:37 Empirimancer wrote: Well, with the nerf to marauders and the buff to ultras, the new Terran unit pretty much has to be bio.
And it has to be good. Very good.
Maybe they'll just buff Snipe again. =\
Legit not a bad idea. Using higher than Tier 1 units to counter Tier 3 units seems completely reasonable to me. Maybe only make Snipe work vs ground units too so Ghosts don't go back to owning all Zerg T3. It's not like you're going to mass Ghosts and Snipe Mutas, anyway.
On April 02 2015 04:05 Jono7272 wrote: So funny seeing Zergs unable to split their units vs the disruptor
Destiny is definitely pissed.
As a Terran I'm loving it haha. He pulled off a split or 2 towards the end though
Which is probably the reason why he won, as those 2 Disruptors didn't do anything, plus he killed some more and they cost 300 gas each. Huk didn't have gas in the end, which explains his heavy Zealot commitment.
I think the Disruptor drop thing in PvZ will die pretty quickly, it doesn't seem to do much when the Zerg has decent reaction time tbh. They also look pretty weak in straight-up fights (when you don't have warp prisms to pick em up) because while they deal massive damage you're pretty sure of losing them once they become vulnerable again.
On April 02 2015 04:18 OtherWorld wrote: I think the Disruptor drop thing in PvZ will die pretty quickly, it doesn't seem to do much when the Zerg has decent reaction time tbh
I think seeing Robo basically means you just straight up get a spire
On April 02 2015 03:28 TheAnarchy wrote: I think SH is dead. Has someone seen SH being used?
stephano used it
How was it?
Different, he basically tried to defend with lurkers/spinecrawlers/spores and used the swarmhosts to destroy infrastructure. Didn't watch him the whole time though, but it looked doable (and way more active)
From what I've seen of all of LotV Starcraft in general has become more active.
On April 02 2015 04:25 Doc Daneeka wrote: units besides zerglings seem too slow to react to disruptor. toss looks pretty screwed if the disruptor whiffs though.
Yeah, it is pretty much an all or nothing/very little unit. Do damage or die. Pretty lame
Sure, warp prisms can pick it up, but the fact that all the other player can do is split to minimise damage alone makes the unit silly.
Dragon has more viewers than more than half of the featured lotv streamers. And there is not a good terran to watch Someone send him a key already, he was one of the most consistent streamers for the last 2 years as well
disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
Chill, the beta is only one day old
It is funny to watch a 3 movement speed invulnerable baneling chasing roaches though :D destiny ragequitted few minutes ago against huk
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
Chill, the beta is only one day old
It is funny to watch a 3 movement speed invulnerable baneling chasing roaches though :D destiny ragequitted few minutes ago against huk
yeah i know that's why I'm waiting it out to see if its worth playing when its over.
The only times when the disruptor looks unstoppable is when people don't split against it. Compared to the goddamn ravager it's actually a cool unit i think, the damage might be too high but i like the design, especially with the warp prism. Honestly right now it's the only thing that feels strong enough to stand up to the ridicolousness that is zerg between ravagers, ultras, lurkers, and just how the economy has changed zerg's production. We will see i guess.
From what I have seen the lurker and Adept are not used very much. I saw Maximusblack playing with the adept and they looked kinda weak and very clunky? How are they doing?
On April 01 2015 14:31 alexanderzero wrote: Right now I can't figure out how protoss is supposed to beat mech. I'm guessing air units (air opener is pretty solid for the early game) but I havent tried the fleet beacon units yet.
The carrier seems to be quite good according to a few streamers I've watched. I'm assuming that's how.
Omg adept is such a disappointment! I thought it was supposed to be a "core" gateway unit! Plz Bliz! Toss is generally screwed over imo. Sooo disappointing! And to think that this is supposedly the final expansion + toss-focused expansion!
On April 02 2015 04:52 skylinefan wrote: Omg adept is such a disappointment! I thought it was supposed to be a "core" gateway unit! Plz Bliz! Toss is generally screwed over imo. Sooo disappointing! And to think that this is supposedly the final expansion + toss-focused expansion!
On April 02 2015 04:52 skylinefan wrote: Omg adept is such a disappointment! I thought it was supposed to be a "core" gateway unit! Plz Bliz! Toss is generally screwed over imo. Sooo disappointing! And to think that this is supposedly the final expansion + toss-focused expansion!
People need to stop believing in this myth about "race-focused" expansions for multiplayer. It is toss-focused in the campaign, and that's about it.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
Chill, the beta is only one day old
It is funny to watch a 3 movement speed invulnerable baneling chasing roaches though :D destiny ragequitted few minutes ago against huk
this thing called burrow, l2fuckingburrow, disruptors cant kill if burrowed
i actually think most of the changes are really exciting, even if they're not balanced yet. ravager is going to support previously impossible unit comps and it's exciting to watch it. i think lurker will be good in zvt once people get more practice with it. disruptor is the only thing that looks straight up stupid, but we'll see, beta hasnt even been up for 24 hours.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
Chill, the beta is only one day old
It is funny to watch a 3 movement speed invulnerable baneling chasing roaches though :D destiny ragequitted few minutes ago against huk
this thing called burrow, l2fuckingburrow, disruptors cant kill if burrowed
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
Not really i rarely watch streams and yes i do know steven but haven't talked to him at all about LotV. I have my own beta key, guess someone is jealous?
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
On April 01 2015 17:34 Lunareste wrote: I really feel like Siege Tank damage needs to be buffed now, if Protoss and Zergs are getting so many buffs (cracklings, Ultralisks and Disruptors as drop play) then Terran needs more effective map control and deathball breaking.
I heard protoss isn't able to win games at the moment
Rotterdam has a very solid record so far (he's keeping track on his stream). He's really only having issues with zerg and even then he has a winning record against zerg.
On April 02 2015 04:40 Teoita wrote: The only times when the disruptor looks unstoppable is when people don't split against it. Compared to the goddamn ravager it's actually a cool unit i think, the damage might be too high but i like the design, especially with the warp prism. Honestly right now it's the only thing that feels strong enough to stand up to the ridicolousness that is zerg between ravagers, ultras, lurkers, and just how the economy has changed zerg's production. We will see i guess.
The ravager is a cool design. A lot cooler then the disruptor. I don't think disruptor is op though at least from what I've seen anyway.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
gl with your twitch goals with your 19 followers ^_^
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
gl with your twitch goals with your 19 followers ^_^
What does that have to do with anything LotV related? My followers is actually "bugged" and twitch is fixing it if you really are that curious. I dont think i got my 1200 followers from nowhere bro.
But ya, still non relevant i guess ur out of words.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
gl with your twitch goals with your 19 followers ^_^
What does that have to do with anything LotV related? My followers is actually "bugged" and twitch is fixing it if you really are that curious. I dont think i got my 1200 followers from nowhere bro.
But ya, still non relevant i guess ur out of words.
Hey man, only high level play. You're a pro so I'm just saying good luck with your goals ^_^
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
gl with your twitch goals with your 19 followers ^_^
What does that have to do with anything LotV related? My followers is actually "bugged" and twitch is fixing it if you really are that curious. I dont think i got my 1200 followers from nowhere bro.
But ya, still non relevant i guess ur out of words.
Hey man, only high level play. You're a pro so I'm just saying good luck with your goals ^_^
Are you trying to insult me in a sarcastic way? You're failing if that's the case.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
lol, wild arrogant Destiny's stooge appeared.
rofl he's just a mad kid
Nah not really mad just more knowledge about the game than you I'm positive
gl with your twitch goals with your 19 followers ^_^
What does that have to do with anything LotV related? My followers is actually "bugged" and twitch is fixing it if you really are that curious. I dont think i got my 1200 followers from nowhere bro.
But ya, still non relevant i guess ur out of words.
Hey man, only high level play. You're a pro so I'm just saying good luck with your goals ^_^
Are you trying to insult me in a sarcastic way? You're failing if that's the case.
On April 02 2015 05:25 NonY wrote: where is everyone meeting up to play? general chat is almost empty, no one but me talking. no other lobbies open but mine and no one joining
On April 02 2015 00:47 Everlong wrote: It seems to me like Ravagers and Lurkers are forcing players to avoid engagements, especially in ZvP. The endless kiting and running around in circle is not very fun, but it might be just my impression. We will see.
On April 02 2015 05:25 NonY wrote: where is everyone meeting up to play? general chat is almost empty, no one but me talking. no other lobbies open but mine and no one joining
Queuing unranked (only available option atm)
it doesn't crash for anyone else? is there a known fix for the crashing issue?
On April 02 2015 05:25 NonY wrote: where is everyone meeting up to play? general chat is almost empty, no one but me talking. no other lobbies open but mine and no one joining
Queuing unranked (only available option atm)
it doesn't crash for anyone else? is there a known fix for the crashing issue?
NonY bro, just queue up with the rest of us. You'll meet us in game.
On April 02 2015 05:25 NonY wrote: where is everyone meeting up to play? general chat is almost empty, no one but me talking. no other lobbies open but mine and no one joining
Queuing unranked (only available option atm)
it doesn't crash for anyone else? is there a known fix for the crashing issue?
NonY bro, just queue up with the rest of us. You'll meet us in game.
On April 02 2015 06:04 Mozdk wrote: When can the rest of us expect to play? Like 2 months?
Do you not have the beta yet? I thought everyone has it. I have been playing for almost the whole time since I got it.
Well how did you get it?
Blizzard gave it to me. I woke up, checked my email and got an email from Blizzard claiming that I got accepted into the Legacy of the Void beta program. Thinking it was a scam to steal my account, I turned on my Battle.net client and it was there. I then texted my classmates telling them that I was sick so I could not come to class and for them to please take lecture notes for me and email them to me.
Since I got it, I have been drinking Monster, Red Bull and eating Papa John's pizza.
I truly feel sorry for you because you did not get into the beta
On April 02 2015 06:19 [PkF] Wire wrote: Do we know yet if there is going to be another batch of invites after the first wave yesterday that seemed to go well ?
On April 02 2015 04:25 Doc Daneeka wrote: units besides zerglings seem too slow to react to disruptor. toss looks pretty screwed if the disruptor whiffs though.
Yeah, it is pretty much an all or nothing/very little unit. Do damage or die. Pretty lame
Sure, warp prisms can pick it up, but the fact that all the other player can do is split to minimise damage alone makes the unit silly.
Hm, not sure about that. Forcing your enemy to move his army around using only a single, threatening unit can allow the rest of YOUR army to be doing work.
On April 02 2015 06:30 Charoisaur wrote: disruptor drops make the hellbat drops from HotS Beta look like a joke...
Yea especially since Hellbats and Disruptors cost the exact same amount of money: 100 minerals. You need more tech for Disruptor but anyone can tell it is clearly imbalanced.
On April 02 2015 06:30 Charoisaur wrote: disruptor drops make the hellbat drops from HotS Beta look like a joke...
Yea especially since Hellbats and Disruptors cost the exact same amount of money: 100 minerals. You need more tech for Disruptor but anyone can tell it is clearly imbalanced.
P.S. DAVID KIM AND DUSTIN BROWDER SUCK
What? That's simply not true wtf Disruptors cost 150/300 and are* 4 supply
It's always fun to play closed betas and discover the extreme flaws with it. So much will be changed for the actual game and I'm 100% positive on that.
Imo its hard to lose right now .. like out of 20 games i've lost like 2-3? and I've played all races. I'll keep making up strats cus it's so much to do.
On April 02 2015 06:59 KingofdaHipHop wrote: godammit i wanna play, went back to hots for the first time in a while but i really really really want to play lotv now
I'd let you use my account to play, but I am having way too much fun playing.
On April 02 2015 06:59 KingofdaHipHop wrote: godammit i wanna play, went back to hots for the first time in a while but i really really really want to play lotv now
I'd let you use my account to play, but I am having way too much fun playing.
On April 02 2015 06:59 KingofdaHipHop wrote: godammit i wanna play, went back to hots for the first time in a while but i really really really want to play lotv now
I'd let you use my account to play, but I am having way too much fun playing.
almost sounds like you're waving the carrot in front of my face haha
So I just changed the following with the Cyclone on a test map:
- 3.15 movement speed - 5 lock on range - 9 max range - 0/low CD on the lock-on abillity
Upgrade = 20% attack speed buff (but you can do whatever here).
Effect - Very easy to move out of range against the terran player --> Countermicro heavily rewarded - A good terran player will constantly position his Cyclones to just be out of Stalker/immortal/Hydralisk/Roch/Maurauder range, but never above a range of 9 which makes them extremely difficult to use optimally (those a very high skillcap).
The above numbers here are obvious something I quickly tested - balancewise it might be a bit weak, however it's clear to me that this solution creates a much more fun interaction).
On April 02 2015 07:50 Hider wrote: So I just changed the following with the Cyclone on a test map:
- 3.15 movement speed - 5 lock on range - 9 max range - 0/low CD on the lock-on abillity
Upgrade = 20% attack speed buff (but you can do whatever here).
Effect - Very easy to move out of range against the terran player --> Countermicro heavily rewarded - A good terran player will constantly position his Cyclones to just be out of Stalker/immortal/Hydralisk/Roch/Maurauder range, but never above a range of 9 which makes them extremely difficult to use optimally (those a very high skillcap).
The above numbers here are obvious something I quickly tested - balancewise it might be a bit weak, however it's clear to me that this solution creates a much more fun interaction).
I was discussing cyclone with someone on reddit, and he had a neat idea: make the auto-attack thingy energy based.
I was discussing cyclone with someone on reddit, and he had a neat idea: make the auto-attack thingy energy based.
The reason I don't like those type of balancefixes is that they maintain the core issue: The huge lock-on range has no countermicro. It's an absolutete neccesity that units can move out of the range. Or at least it should be incredibly challenging for the terran to constantly attack the enemy while staying out of range (think of unupgraded Phoenix vs Mutas here - not the fact that Phoenix > Mutas, but rather how you micro Phoenix and then imagine that you could pull out injured Mutas indiviudally when focussed).
Adding an energy cost will only result in the lame ability being used less frequently. But the real fix is to turn the lame ability into an interesting one.
I wish blizzard to do something with the supply cap. It really needs to be raised to 250 with all these 3 and 4 supply units. I always feel that maxed out armys are too small, especially on the the larger maps.
On April 02 2015 08:03 syroz wrote: Ultralisk will have 7 armor?
Zerlgling 40% bonus damage with adrenal glands?
Nobody noticed THAT? :D
Actually, Ultras have 8 armor.
And Zerglings got attack speed increased by 40% with adrenal, they are now the true Cracklings.
People notice that a lot, it is just that nobody tries anything else but mass Ravagers right now and some add Lurkers. Give it a bit of time, we will see a ton of cool stuff.
On April 02 2015 08:03 syroz wrote: Ultralisk will have 7 armor?
Zerlgling 40% bonus damage with adrenal glands?
Nobody noticed THAT? :D
Actually, Ultras have 8 armor.
And Zerglings got attack speed increased by 40% with adrenal, they are now the true Cracklings.
People notice that a lot, it is just that nobody tries anything else but mass Ravagers right now and some add Lurkers. Give it a bit of time, we will see a ton of cool stuff.
That's back to BW stats for lings now with adrenal upgrades right? Been a long time for me but pretty sure that's the same as cracklings in BW with the 40% adrenal upgrade now
MC had sick disruptor micro against Hyun in the match a I saw early. I think mass stalkers with some disruptorts is the new meta against zerg ravagers.
On April 02 2015 08:03 syroz wrote: Ultralisk will have 7 armor?
Zerlgling 40% bonus damage with adrenal glands?
Nobody noticed THAT? :D
Actually, Ultras have 8 armor.
And Zerglings got attack speed increased by 40% with adrenal, they are now the true Cracklings.
People notice that a lot, it is just that nobody tries anything else but mass Ravagers right now and some add Lurkers. Give it a bit of time, we will see a ton of cool stuff.
That's back to BW stats for lings now with adrenal upgrades right? Been a long time for me but pretty sure that's the same as cracklings in BW with the 40% adrenal upgrade now
Nope, it is better. :D
Cracklings from BW had 33% attack speed increase. I can't wait to see them and some Crackling rushing strategies like in BW. Probably won't be that much effective with how much stuff there is to hard counter them, but I would really like to see it.
On April 02 2015 08:03 syroz wrote: Ultralisk will have 7 armor?
Zerlgling 40% bonus damage with adrenal glands?
Nobody noticed THAT? :D
Actually, Ultras have 8 armor.
And Zerglings got attack speed increased by 40% with adrenal, they are now the true Cracklings.
People notice that a lot, it is just that nobody tries anything else but mass Ravagers right now and some add Lurkers. Give it a bit of time, we will see a ton of cool stuff.
That's back to BW stats for lings now with adrenal upgrades right? Been a long time for me but pretty sure that's the same as cracklings in BW with the 40% adrenal upgrade now
Nope, it is better. :D
Cracklings from BW had 33% attack speed increase. I can't wait to see them and some Crackling rushing strategies like in BW. Probably won't be that much effective with how much stuff there is to hard counter them, but I would really like to see it.
No Speedlings started with a much attack speed in BW. AS I remember it, they had like 40% more dps to start by.
On April 02 2015 08:23 TheAnarchy wrote: MC had sick disruptor micro against Hyun in the match a I saw early. I think mass stalkers with some disruptorts is the new meta against zerg ravagers.
On April 02 2015 08:23 TheAnarchy wrote: MC had sick disruptor micro against Hyun in the match a I saw early. I think mass stalkers with some disruptorts is the new meta against zerg ravagers.
On April 02 2015 08:03 syroz wrote: Ultralisk will have 7 armor?
Zerlgling 40% bonus damage with adrenal glands?
Nobody noticed THAT? :D
Actually, Ultras have 8 armor.
And Zerglings got attack speed increased by 40% with adrenal, they are now the true Cracklings.
People notice that a lot, it is just that nobody tries anything else but mass Ravagers right now and some add Lurkers. Give it a bit of time, we will see a ton of cool stuff.
That's back to BW stats for lings now with adrenal upgrades right? Been a long time for me but pretty sure that's the same as cracklings in BW with the 40% adrenal upgrade now
Nope, it is better. :D
Cracklings from BW had 33% attack speed increase. I can't wait to see them and some Crackling rushing strategies like in BW. Probably won't be that much effective with how much stuff there is to hard counter them, but I would really like to see it.
No Speedlings started with a much attack speed in BW. AS I remember it, they had like 40% more dps to start by.
No, what I've meant is that adrenal glands upgrade is better(33% in BW, compared to 40% now in LOTV), not Lings as units.
On April 02 2015 04:33 FASSW wrote: disruptor is so cancerous its insane. I hope it gets nerfed immediately. Thinking of getting grandmasters on LotV then quit if this expansion/game is worth playing later when beta phase is over.
Haha, I guess we can say a unit is "cancerous" now since Destiny kept saying it earlier on his stream!
Why do ravagers move so fast? It seems very.... odd. They're a bulky and stronger evolution of a front-line unit for Zerg and have a heavy duty artillery cannon on their back that launches things into the sky, but they move extremely fast as if they're as light as mutalisks or hydras.
Not talking about balance. Just about design. Better to balance a design that doesn't seem silly.
I would like to see Zerg players play around with Broodlords more now when the Tempest and Colossus are weaker. But I guess the new units and unit changes are just too tempting right now.
On April 02 2015 09:44 Quidios wrote: I would like to see Zerg players play around with Broodlords more now when the Tempest and Colossus are weaker. But I guess the new units and unit changes are just too tempting right now.
zerg uses ravagers and nydus they're way too strong atm
On April 02 2015 00:27 andrewlt wrote: It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
This. Roaches never got nerfed, but good point none the less.
Corruptor New Ability – Caustic Spray: Channeled ability that initially deals 5 damage per second to any building. Damage is increased to 25 damage per second after 6 seconds.
On April 02 2015 09:43 DemigodcelpH wrote: Why do ravagers move so fast? It seems very.... odd. They're a bulky and stronger evolution of a front-line unit for Zerg and have a heavy duty artillery cannon on their back that launches things into the sky, but they move extremely fast as if they're as light as mutalisks or hydras.
Not talking about balance. Just about design. Better to balance a design that doesn't seem silly.
It even make less sense that they have less HP than a Roach, even though they "evolved" from them and are 4x bigger...
On April 02 2015 10:22 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Corruptor New Ability – Caustic Spray: Channeled ability that initially deals 5 damage per second to any building. Damage is increased to 25 damage per second after 6 seconds.
So these games are much, much shorter. Destiny just finished a 6 min 42 second game (Blizzard time) and they were both T2 having roach wars burrow and everything. That's old 4 gate timing. I really like it, to be honest. Is there much to be missed with speeding up the economy, aside from 2 rax and 6 pool, etc.?
On April 02 2015 10:51 Dalguno wrote: So these games are much, much shorter. Destiny just finished a 6 min 42 second game (Blizzard time) and they were both T2 having roach wars burrow and everything. That's old 4 gate timing. I really like it, to be honest. Is there much to be missed with speeding up the economy, aside from 2 rax and 6 pool, etc.?
They switched the timer to real time, so the clock literally is going slower than in HOTS on fastest. Anyway I think there is not more to be missed, actually cheese is still possible, it's just a different kind cheese.
On April 02 2015 10:51 Dalguno wrote: So these games are much, much shorter. Destiny just finished a 6 min 42 second game (Blizzard time) and they were both T2 having roach wars burrow and everything. That's old 4 gate timing. I really like it, to be honest. Is there much to be missed with speeding up the economy, aside from 2 rax and 6 pool, etc.?
There isn't a "Blizzard Time" any more, it is real time 6 minutes and 42 seconds, which equals to nearly 9 minutes before LotV.
On April 02 2015 10:51 Dalguno wrote: So these games are much, much shorter. Destiny just finished a 6 min 42 second game (Blizzard time) and they were both T2 having roach wars burrow and everything. That's old 4 gate timing. I really like it, to be honest. Is there much to be missed with speeding up the economy, aside from 2 rax and 6 pool, etc.?
There isn't a "Blizzard Time" any more, it is real time 6 minutes and 42 seconds, which equals to nearly 9 minutes before LotV.
Anyway, super-early game (like, first 2 minutes) seem indeed way less boring than before. It was tiring to wait for the same shit to finish before finally starting to make decisions :D
The beta preview is so absolutely insufficient for describing all the new stuff in the game. Obviously that shit has to be well-documented already since they've been designing all those details already. Playing the game blindly and figuring it out in-game is ridiculously unfun and unproductive.
No key for me, YET! But watching the late game, basetrade etc etc everyone seems very very positive so far. Apart from the odd balance change, for example to cyclone, the late game shows panel main issue seemed to be with the map pool.
On April 02 2015 00:27 andrewlt wrote: It put a smile to my face that two of the unholy trinity of terrible units (colossus, marauder, roach) got nerfed. We've only been complaining about these units since WoL beta.
This. Roaches never got nerfed, but good point none the less.
Roaches used to regen hp when unburrowed and they cost 1 supply. They were completely out of control in the wol beta. Standard toss opener was immortal rush.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
Is everyone still just automatically getting Warp Gate research and morphing Warp Gates immediately? I kind of feel like maybe Protoss shouldn't be doing that early in the game and just focus on macroing out a lot of units from normal Gateways.
At minimum, this is going to be a LOT of fun to watch in the early game, at the professional level.
Though, with how rapid some of the games can go, I wonder if Bo5 is going to become standard? When every game is really fast, I just wonder if, at the top level, a Bo3 will seem short? That's going to be an open question for a while.
On April 02 2015 15:36 Pontius Pirate wrote: That was a pretty poor decision to allow multiple Corruptors to cast caustic spray on the same target. Those things are way too viable en masse now.
IIRC what jakatak said earlier, it doesn't stack on the same unit, but casting it on 2 units next to each other will cause it to stack.
(edit I think this was regarding caustic spray, someone correct me if I am wrong)
On April 02 2015 15:04 Doublemint wrote: from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
Well just so you know, for the last few years playing against Protoss has been absolutely zero fun. So. Retribution, or something. I hope all you scummy tosses cry for days. :D
On April 02 2015 15:54 TronJovolta wrote: Seriously though, watching Protoss players actually have to micro units and not have a super OP army has been just delightful.
come on, protoss has always required a fair amount of micro, and no micro isn't exclusively kiting (which anybody can do really)
On April 02 2015 15:54 TronJovolta wrote: Seriously though, watching Protoss players actually have to micro units and not have a super OP army has been just delightful.
come on, protoss has always required a fair amount of micro, and no micro isn't exclusively kiting (which anybody can do really)
cmon man, even you gotta understand that fucking nobody in the community likes Colossus. Even Blizzard wants them out of the game.
Did Artosis play any PvZ? That would have been at least just as amusing.
Also, the colossus right now is effectively out of the game.
On April 02 2015 15:05 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Is everyone still just automatically getting Warp Gate research and morphing Warp Gates immediately? I kind of feel like maybe Protoss shouldn't be doing that early in the game and just focus on macroing out a lot of units from normal Gateways.
Our units are already terrible compared to our opponent's, not getting warpgate would also mean that a round of production would be stuck in gateways instead of actually being on the field. Warpgate is as mandatory as ever, only now it's terrible.
Lol not sure how to post twitter convos on here but from one of Artosis' Tweets people were replying:
Infeza says "people wanted protoss removed from the game. They essentially did that."
And Nathanias goes "It's called legacy for a reason, not dominance of the void."
Also you should read Artosis blog on his first day in the beta, it's surprisingly calm and collected after his frustrating ladder session, except for the first line under his thoughts about the cyclone lol. The blog link is on his twitter as well.
On April 02 2015 15:12 Taf the Ghost wrote: At minimum, this is going to be a LOT of fun to watch in the early game, at the professional level.
Though, with how rapid some of the games can go, I wonder if Bo5 is going to become standard? When every game is really fast, I just wonder if, at the top level, a Bo3 will seem short? That's going to be an open question for a while.
No changes at all. Only one minute shorter because of 12 worker start. You seem confused with real time now. Doesnt matter if the game ran 7min real time (LOTV) or 10min Blizzard time (WoL and HotS).
Disrupter makes storms useless, overlaps too much. Disrupter is the new hero protoss unit and kills ~99% all opponents units in the whole game.
On April 02 2015 15:12 Taf the Ghost wrote: At minimum, this is going to be a LOT of fun to watch in the early game, at the professional level.
Though, with how rapid some of the games can go, I wonder if Bo5 is going to become standard? When every game is really fast, I just wonder if, at the top level, a Bo3 will seem short? That's going to be an open question for a while.
No changes at all. Only one minute shorter because of 12 worker start. You seem confused with real time now. Doesnt matter if the game ran 7min real time (LOTV) or 10min Blizzard time (WoL and HotS).
Disrupter makes storms useless, overlaps too much. Disrupter is the new hero protoss unit and kills ~99% all opponents units in the whole game.
On April 02 2015 15:04 Doublemint wrote: from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
Not surprised, Toss didnt get a single buff to a fighting unit and a lot of nerfs.
On April 02 2015 15:04 Doublemint wrote: from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
Well just so you know, for the last few years playing against Protoss has been absolutely zero fun. So. Retribution, or something. I hope all you scummy tosses cry for days. :D
Protoss was always about balancing shitty units with gimmicks. Well and the colossus. Now lots of the gimmics got nerfed/counters implemented. So either the adept is a stackable basic unit that can fight marines and zerglings/roaches in high numbers or toss is screwed.
On April 02 2015 08:12 Loccstana wrote: I wish blizzard to do something with the supply cap. It really needs to be raised to 250 with all these 3 and 4 supply units. I always feel that maxed out armys are too small, especially on the the larger maps.
Ideally we want low supply fights and being far from maxing out. 200/200 armies are too easy to get (now you can max out at 10 minutes) and are part of the problems of this game, as it is macro > micro usually. The one with bigger production is on a big lead.
On April 02 2015 15:05 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Is everyone still just automatically getting Warp Gate research and morphing Warp Gates immediately? I kind of feel like maybe Protoss shouldn't be doing that early in the game and just focus on macroing out a lot of units from normal Gateways.
Our units are already terrible compared to our opponent's, not getting warpgate would also mean that a round of production would be stuck in gateways instead of actually being on the field. Warpgate is as mandatory as ever, only now it's terrible.
Again, they are fucking things up.
Instead of fixing the lame early game Protoss has and delaying Warpgate to a reasonable tech level to make it less timing-friendly, they are simply applying certain nerfs to a mechanic that is completely needed, specially for defense. A full medivac of units? Too bad you can't defend by warp-in anymore, and cannons last nothing. So we keep Nexus Cannon (another bad design thing).
Simply, pre-warpgate play should be standard and viable. Chronoboost is guilty about this topic, as I've pointed many times. Protoss is balanced around the idea that they need Chronboost from the start, causing many problems (Gateway build times delayed for early game balance, all-in/timing friendly).In fact, if Warpgate reduces build times it's because it's really needed mid-game to match the production of other races, and there's no balance concern about this. So it's an early game question.
Some very bad decisions for LotV: - Lame, not solid econ. Still very snowbally. - Game goes too fast. - Not solving some deep design issues - In pretty much all the cases, "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE!" for new units. Ravager stats were nice at Blizzcon, now they are glass cannons on steroids (less HP than a roach, 20DPS)
Beta software refers to computer software that is undergoing testing and has not yet been officially released. The beta phase follows the alpha phase, but precedes the final version. Some beta software is only made available to a select number of users, while other beta programs are released to the general public.
Software developers release beta versions of software in order to garner useful feedback before releasing the final version of a program.
The mineral changes are one of the most happily received alterations in lotv.
(edit: I just dont get how they are 'fucking things up'. When it's day TWO of a CLOSED beta. Damn).
On April 02 2015 15:12 Taf the Ghost wrote: At minimum, this is going to be a LOT of fun to watch in the early game, at the professional level.
Though, with how rapid some of the games can go, I wonder if Bo5 is going to become standard? When every game is really fast, I just wonder if, at the top level, a Bo3 will seem short? That's going to be an open question for a while.
No changes at all. Only one minute shorter because of 12 worker start. You seem confused with real time now. Doesnt matter if the game ran 7min real time (LOTV) or 10min Blizzard time (WoL and HotS).
Disrupter makes storms useless, overlaps too much. Disrupter is the new hero protoss unit and kills ~99% all opponents units in the whole game.
you could try micro, bro.
I dont have LOTV acces, all what I have seen are on streams from Incontrol, Destiny, Naniwa, Stephano, Nathanias, HuK etc.
The thing is, you need terrible, terrible damage when units are as mobile as they are in SC2, otherwise you end up with some variation on roach vs roach where the whole army lines up and slugs it out.
Personally, I like the way it's going. It feels fast-paced, even though there are generally more bases. Are games over too quickly? I don't know. I think I'd rather have long games be rare, epic, memorable events than have casters desperately trying to fill while we wait for the one big decisive fight.
On April 02 2015 18:06 Umpteen wrote: Personally, I like the way it's going. It feels fast-paced, even though there are generally more bases. Are games over too quickly? I don't know. I think I'd rather have long games be rare, epic, memorable events than have casters desperately trying to fill while we wait for the one big decisive fight.
wouldn't it be cool though if they at least tried to make most of the games not boil down to 1 deathball fight? unless adding stuff like super burrow roaches, protoss nuke-unit, super prisms and keeping sutff like muta balls and speedivacs actually supposed to be their attempts at it.
right. turning here to help, so I might be able to play a little before Blizzard support answers
I am supposed to have the LotV Beta, I have talked to someone at blizzard and in their list my account is flagged and should have access.
However, when I log into my battle.net account, I only have "HotS - Standard Version" in there. When I open my Battle.net App there is no Beta option. There is no E-Mail (why should there, it's account flagging).
Is there something wrong, or am I looking in the wrong place? I just can't seem to find anything and now I'm wondering whether I'm just stupid and can't find it, or if something went wrong and it's really not there.
On April 02 2015 15:05 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Is everyone still just automatically getting Warp Gate research and morphing Warp Gates immediately? I kind of feel like maybe Protoss shouldn't be doing that early in the game and just focus on macroing out a lot of units from normal Gateways.
Our units are already terrible compared to our opponent's, not getting warpgate would also mean that a round of production would be stuck in gateways instead of actually being on the field. Warpgate is as mandatory as ever, only now it's terrible.
Ok, well, since for some reason they didn't fucking add changes like this to the notes from the other day, what *exactly* is different about the Warp Gate now, just so I understand completely before I try to discuss this any further.
edit: Ok so if everything on this page is accurate: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18291111 then...I don't really see the big change in Warp tbh. Yeah, it sucks a bit that you can't literally warp units into the middle of a battle, but frankly, that's probably how it should be anyway. I thought it might have been a more severe nerf the way people have been whining about it.
I've got a fun as hell build for PvT if they open bio! Basically opens standard blink/robo but rushes a prism and disruptor right away. When they push out, you drop the disruptor behind their army and flank them. If they pick up, you chase with blink, if not, well... No idea if viable or not but it worked for me :D
Wow must be really annoying, when u build a disruptor in ur base and then realize you cannot squeeze it through the zealot wallin :/ Colossus could cliffwalk, but how do u handle this? I mean u cannot just kill the pylon in ur wall and then wall of every time or build the robo outside. U could pick up with WP, but that means u always need the WP. Prolly reducing the colission radius is gonna be best solution.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
On April 02 2015 18:55 DarkLordOlli wrote: I've got a fun as hell build for PvT if they open bio! Basically opens standard blink/robo but rushes a prism and disruptor right away. When they push out, you drop the disruptor behind their army and flank them. If they pick up, you chase with blink, if not, well... No idea if viable or not but it worked for me :D
That's what Huk did against Nathanias, but Nathan went for Cyclones into Bio. He was crushing Huk up until that point, and then Huk killed like 20 SCVs with 1 Disruptor when Nathanias pulled them to defend and it was over. It feels really strong against Bio, but if he has a lot of Cyclones you will be in trouble.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Holy fuck, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
200/200 armies are too easy to get (now you can max out at 10 minutes)
10 minutes now was almost 14 minutes before they changed the clock. I saw zerg and terran hit 200/200 in actual games against me by that time in low master HOTS. Zerg because zerg, and terran one game when he was just way better than me and got 3 orbitals down way too fast.
You can max out substantially faster - by about 5 to 7 minutes or so if you're in a game by yourself AFAIK
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
10-15 ravagers are actually a pretty big anti air threat, you can at least control space with them against slow air units
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy fuck, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
The thing is, Ravagers are really big and it is hard to attack with all of them, which is the reason you will probably see like 7-8 of them with group of Hydras and Roaches. If you have like 10+ Ravagers, half of your units are blocked and aren't attacking, close to Ling, Bane, Ultralisks where if you go for 10+ Ultras you are having a huge engagement problems on maps that aren't wide open.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy fuck, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
Those numbers are in real-time seconds, not Blizzard time seconds. The blizzard-time cooldown is 0.8, so 20 dps, not 28. Still high, but not outrageous.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy fuck, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
Those numbers are in real-time seconds, not Blizzard time seconds. The blizzard-time cooldown is 0.8, so 20 dps, not 28. Still high, but not outrageous.
They don't. If they did, that would be a release, not a beta.
This is nonsense. Balance isn't the only thing to take into account when releasing a game. They need to have proper models, removal of bugs, sounds, redeisgn of old units and the new units must be implemented properly as well.
The point here is that these balance issues weren't unexpected, and Blizzard has had lots of months since Blizzcon to come up with ways to give toss a proper midgame in order to prepare them for a world where Forcefields can be countered and they need to take bases faster. All they have managed to do since then is create a shadow-unit that doesn't really fit in anywhere....
Exactly because this is a beta, they should have been experimented with more radical changes that potentially could be balanced, but would require testing to confirm (and tweak).
Like why not reduce the cost of the Robo Facility to like 150/50 and/or make templar tech more accessible as well? These changes would boost toss in the midgame. Maybe it would result in unintended consequences or maybe it could actually result in giving toss a much more solid core army composition. But that's the point of the beta, you test out changes that theoretically could work, but which you are unsure of in practice.
On the other hand, testing out stuff that's obviously imbalanced is wasting alot of playtesters time.
Exactly because this is a beta, they should have been experimented with more radical changes that potentially could be balanced, but would require testing to confirm (and tweak).
After blizzcon they made a comment that they want to test more crazy stuff during the beta... I wonder what that means and if they keep word.
I have a tiny glimmer of hope that this means they don't really care about balance problems right now, because they want to work on certain fundamentals and maybe change core units instead of trying to start of with something rather balanced.
Exactly because this is a beta, they should have been experimented with more radical changes that potentially could be balanced, but would require testing to confirm (and tweak).
After blizzcon they made a comment that they want to test more crazy stuff during the beta... I wonder what that means and if they keep word.
Well, there's at least the new terran unit to experiment with.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy !@#$%^&*, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
I start to feel like another issue with the Ravager is related to the weakness of the Immortal. IMO the Immortal must take a stronger role in LOTV with the addition of the Adept (that's anti light) + neccesity of protoss army being stronger in the core midgame. The Hydra would then be better against the Immortal, and the Immortal should be pretty strong against the Ravager.
A design I have been experimenting briefly with this (for the Ravager), is this:
Ravager tweaks - 7-8 attack range - 75 HP (and much much lower model size... smaller than Roach) - Armored - Skillshot cast range slightly reduced (in order to force Ravagers to come into "risky" zone for a brief period before getting back into range). - 24 damage (so very high DPS) - Cooldown on skillshot = 15 seconds (from 10) - Skillshot AOE radius = Increased by 30%. - Movement speed = Not sure about this one. Currently just using default of 2.75, but should it scale w/ Roach speed?
These are just some early testings of mine, but it completely changes how you use the Ravager. Rather than amoving into the enemy line and spamming the ability, you now need to be a lot more careful about when you use it as it is easiy sniped and the CD is higher. On the other hand there is also a stronger reward for landing the skillshot well, and the Ravager does also function well as a long range DPS unit.
In order to further differentiate this from the Hydra, there are a lot other variables that I am considering tweaking such as;
- Hydralisk DPS reduction + HP increased to 90 (Hydralisk becoms the "mid"-tank then) - Ravagers core attack has higher damage vs light or armored and the skillshot has the reverse of that (so its core attack is good vs certain units and the skillshot attack is good vs other types of units).
So lots of potential here with the Ravager, and it's why I still love the concept, but it does need a good deal of work and experimentation.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy !@#$%^&*, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
I start to feel like another issue with the Ravager is related to the weakness of the Immortal. IMO the Immortal must take a stronger role in LOTV with the addition of the Adept (that's anti light) + neccesity of protoss army being stronger in the core midgame. The Hydra would then be better against the Immortal, and the Immortal should be pretty strong against the Ravager.
A design I have been experimenting briefly with this (for the Ravager), is this:
Ravager tweaks - 7-8 attack range - 75 HP (and much much lower model size... smaller than Roach) - Armored - Skillshot cast range slightly reduced (in order to force Ravagers to come into "risky" zone for a brief period before getting back into range). - 24 damage (so very high DPS) - Cooldown on skillshot = 15 seconds (from 10) - Skillshot AOE radius = Increased by 30%. - Movement speed = Not sure about this one. Currently just using default of 2.75, but should it scale w/ Roach speed?
These are just some early testings of mine, but it completely changes how you use the Ravager. Rather than amoving into the enemy line and spamming the ability, you now need to be a lot more careful about when you use it as it is easiy sniped and the CD is higher. On the other hand there is also a stronger reward for landing the skillshot well, and the Ravager does also function well as a long range DPS unit.
In order to further differentiate this from the Hydra, there are a lot other variables that I am considering tweaking such as;
- Hydralisk DPS reduction + HP increased to 90 (Hydralisk becoms the "mid"-tank then) - Ravagers core attack has higher damage vs light or armored and the skillshot has the reverse of that (so its core attack is good vs certain units and the skillshot attack is good vs other types of units).
So lots of potential here with the Ravager, and it's why I still love the concept, but it does need a good deal of work and experimentation.
Personally, I don't like that. The hydralisk and the roach are already overlapping in many functions, in particular against midgame protoss. The ravager should really try to stand out from that, which I believe your design does not and for the blizzard one I'm not too sure either. Also the corrossive bile shot already looks quite short ranged in comparison to most artillery in the game. I'd much rather have the ravager have garbage combat stats but be focused on a strong corrosive bile spell for support/artillery purposes (like the ghost has an attack but his actualy job is EMP/Snipe) or straight up make corrosive bile his standard attack with an attack ground option.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
At least prior to this alpha, you would need to understand the change to the economy would be an indirect nerf to immobile compositions (typically protoss) and you would also have to realize that the Ravager would be a huge buff vs toss primarily.
There is something completely suboptimal/wrong with the methdology Blizzard uses in the alpha-phase.
The ravager should really try to stand out from that, which I believe your design does not and for the blizzard one I'm not too sure either.
The tough part of the Ravager is to make it both feel different micro-wise and role-wise from the Roach and the Ravager.
From a micro-perspective, I think its an issue if it stays as a short-range/front-line unit like the Roach as the positional element is lost (and you a-move + spam the skillshot then). For that reason I prefer its more fragile and longer-range and you need to move it in position when you want to cast the skillshot and then quickly get it out of range against.
From a micro-perspective that will definitely make it feel very different from both the Roach and the Ravager + make it less of a spambot. However, from a role-perspective, further experimentations w/ different damage values along with tweaks to the Roach and Hydralisks are needed.
Also the corrossive bile shot already looks quite short ranged in comparison to most artillery in the game. I'd much rather have the ravager have garbage combat stats but be focused on a strong corrosive bile spell for support/artillery purposes (like the ghost has an attack but his actualy job is EMP/Snipe) or straight up make corrosive bile his standard attack with an attack ground option.
If the Ravager was balanced around very weak core stats, but a much better skillshot, there would be two different solutions: (1) Very low CD (7-12 seconds) + medium damage (25% more damage than it currently deals (2) Medium CD (15 secs) + very high damage (50-100% more damage)
The issue with the former solution is that its gonna feel so spammy that its never properly rewarded to attempt to dodge individual skillshots. The issue with the latter is that it could create more "unforgiveable" moments. You look away for one moment and your entire mineral line is gone or 50% of you army value is lost.
I think therefore one should try to heavily reward countermicro but be careful about not making splitsecond mistakes too punishable. For that reason I prefer that its core stats are pretty decent.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
Those stupid things are even cost efficient against max level Kerrigan in the HotS campaign.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy !@#$%^&*, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
I start to feel like another issue with the Ravager is related to the weakness of the Immortal. IMO the Immortal must take a stronger role in LOTV with the addition of the Adept (that's anti light) + neccesity of protoss army being stronger in the core midgame. The Hydra would then be better against the Immortal, and the Immortal should be pretty strong against the Ravager.
A design I have been experimenting briefly with this (for the Ravager), is this:
Ravager tweaks - 7-8 attack range - 75 HP (and much much lower model size... smaller than Roach) - Armored - Skillshot cast range slightly reduced (in order to force Ravagers to come into "risky" zone for a brief period before getting back into range). - 24 damage (so very high DPS) - Cooldown on skillshot = 15 seconds (from 10) - Skillshot AOE radius = Increased by 30%. - Movement speed = Not sure about this one. Currently just using default of 2.75, but should it scale w/ Roach speed?
These are just some early testings of mine, but it completely changes how you use the Ravager. Rather than amoving into the enemy line and spamming the ability, you now need to be a lot more careful about when you use it as it is easiy sniped and the CD is higher. On the other hand there is also a stronger reward for landing the skillshot well, and the Ravager does also function well as a long range DPS unit.
In order to further differentiate this from the Hydra, there are a lot other variables that I am considering tweaking such as;
- Hydralisk DPS reduction + HP increased to 90 (Hydralisk becoms the "mid"-tank then) - Ravagers core attack has higher damage vs light or armored and the skillshot has the reverse of that (so its core attack is good vs certain units and the skillshot attack is good vs other types of units).
So lots of potential here with the Ravager, and it's why I still love the concept, but it does need a good deal of work and experimentation.
Glass cannon units? "terrible terrible damage!" 3 tanks can demolish a whole army of them in 2-3 volleys? Bio shredding it?
No thanks.
I'd prefer a very Tanky Ravager, with the buffed skill shot, and decreased DPS. High attack, very slow rate of fire. Siege-type.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy !@#$%^&*, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
I start to feel like another issue with the Ravager is related to the weakness of the Immortal. IMO the Immortal must take a stronger role in LOTV with the addition of the Adept (that's anti light) + neccesity of protoss army being stronger in the core midgame. The Hydra would then be better against the Immortal, and the Immortal should be pretty strong against the Ravager.
A design I have been experimenting briefly with this (for the Ravager), is this:
Ravager tweaks - 7-8 attack range - 75 HP (and much much lower model size... smaller than Roach) - Armored - Skillshot cast range slightly reduced (in order to force Ravagers to come into "risky" zone for a brief period before getting back into range). - 24 damage (so very high DPS) - Cooldown on skillshot = 15 seconds (from 10) - Skillshot AOE radius = Increased by 30%. - Movement speed = Not sure about this one. Currently just using default of 2.75, but should it scale w/ Roach speed?
These are just some early testings of mine, but it completely changes how you use the Ravager. Rather than amoving into the enemy line and spamming the ability, you now need to be a lot more careful about when you use it as it is easiy sniped and the CD is higher. On the other hand there is also a stronger reward for landing the skillshot well, and the Ravager does also function well as a long range DPS unit.
In order to further differentiate this from the Hydra, there are a lot other variables that I am considering tweaking such as;
- Hydralisk DPS reduction + HP increased to 90 (Hydralisk becoms the "mid"-tank then) - Ravagers core attack has higher damage vs light or armored and the skillshot has the reverse of that (so its core attack is good vs certain units and the skillshot attack is good vs other types of units).
So lots of potential here with the Ravager, and it's why I still love the concept, but it does need a good deal of work and experimentation.
Glass cannon units? "terrible terrible damage!" 3 tanks can demolish a whole army of them in 2-3 volleys? Bio shredding it?
No thanks.
I'd prefer a very Tanky Ravager, with the buffed skill shot, and decreased DPS. High attack, very slow rate of fire. Siege-type.
But with that, zerg has tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 siege options, is that really necessary? Would this not make lurkers obsolete?
Think the point behind ravager's ability is not to decimate opponents army, but to act as a tactical spell to control enemy movement akin to force fields and nukes to an extend. Ravager also allows zerg to pressure protoss in early game without being as bad to economy as early mass ling.
In it's current form it accomplishes this task just fine and unlike force fields, the slime allows opponent to do some counter micro against it.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
Those stupid things are even cost efficient against max level Kerrigan in the HotS campaign.
Warhounds were simply too cheap for what they did. At good cost, like 200/150 3/4 supply, they would have been quite balanced. They were mostly A-move and did extra damage to toss, but quite dynamic and kite-friendly.
At 150/75 they were the beast deal ever. However I think that they could have been a very good replacement to Thors if balanced adequately.
Glass cannon units? "terrible terrible damage!" 3 tanks can demolish a whole army of them in 2-3 volleys? Bio shredding it?
Obviously exact stats are debateable, however, I don't mind the idea that focus firing (with Siege Tanks) is heavily rewarded against the Ravager.
I'd prefer a very Tanky Ravager, with the buffed skill shot, and decreased DPS. High attack, very slow rate of fire. Siege-type.
My concern w/ this solution is that it kinda plays like a Roach. You amove them and they tank well. Now the skillshot thing is still pretty fun and overall the Ravagers is still gonna be reasonable fun. But ideally I prefer not to have more than 1 tanky shortrange/meele units per race as they typically are the least microable. And what weakness will this unit have relative to the Roach? What is the argument for not massing Ravagers over Roaches? From my perspective, it will either end up dominating the Roach (be better in every regard) or be inferior and useless.
Therefore, I believe it is important that it has some type of significant weakness against an enemy that micros very well. E.g. if he is good at focus firing them and if your not good at carefully positioning them, then it should be punishable.
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
Those stupid things are even cost efficient against max level Kerrigan in the HotS campaign.
Warhounds were simply too cheap for what they did. At good cost, like 200/150 3/4 supply, they would have been quite balanced. They were mostly A-move and did extra damage to toss, but quite dynamic and kite-friendly.
At 150/75 they were the beast deal ever. However I think that they could have been a very good replacement to Thors if balanced adequately.
How about giving warhounds anti-air, making them worse in stats and slightly more expensive? The warhound design is much cooler than the cyclone .
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
Those stupid things are even cost efficient against max level Kerrigan in the HotS campaign.
Warhounds were simply too cheap for what they did. At good cost, like 200/150 3/4 supply, they would have been quite balanced. They were mostly A-move and did extra damage to toss, but quite dynamic and kite-friendly.
At 150/75 they were the beast deal ever. However I think that they could have been a very good replacement to Thors if balanced adequately.
How about giving warhounds anti-air, making them worse in stats and slightly more expensive? The warhound design is much cooler than the cyclone .
from what I have seen so far, playing protoss in the current LotV version is not a lot of fun. it might also be in conjunction with the atrocious mappool though. and everytime when warped in units die because it now takes like twice as long and they are literally made of paper - I too die a little inside and can feel the void.
I honestly never had any idea how Blizzard thought the current beta was close to balanced. Giving protoss lots of nerfs and then adding a huge change to the economy on top of that punishes immobility. While I understand that balance isn't first priority in the beta, the issue here was so incredibly obvious, and if you can improve balance easily, why not just do it before you launch the beta (?)
It's the same Blizzard that thought the warhound was balanced in HotS beta and warpgate was balanced in WoL beta. I have my doubts about their playtesters.
Warhound was probably the most idiotic thing ever. You could run it through the unit testers and see that it was cost efficient vs basically everything. That never made sense.
Those stupid things are even cost efficient against max level Kerrigan in the HotS campaign.
Warhounds were simply too cheap for what they did. At good cost, like 200/150 3/4 supply, they would have been quite balanced. They were mostly A-move and did extra damage to toss, but quite dynamic and kite-friendly.
At 150/75 they were the beast deal ever. However I think that they could have been a very good replacement to Thors if balanced adequately.
How about giving warhounds anti-air, making them worse in stats and slightly more expensive? The warhound design is much cooler than the cyclone .
I'd prefer a very Tanky Ravager, with the buffed skill shot, and decreased DPS. High attack, very slow rate of fire. Siege-type.
My concern w/ this solution is that it kinda plays like a Roach. You amove them and they tank well. I prefer not to have more than 1 tanky shortrange/meele units per race as they typically are the least microable.
I think it is important that it needs some type of significant weakness against an enemy that micros very well. E.g. if he is good at focus firing them and if your not good at carefully positioning them, then it should be punishable.
Otherwise you just have a Ravager better than hydralisks, which actually covers 75% the role of the Hydralisk. Glass cannon, main AG DPS in a heavy roach composition, AA capabilities.
The Ravager does not need to be efficient in direct combat, it needs to land good skillshots. Hydras should be the main generalistic DPS.
Don't focus excessively on stats here, and FYI Hydralisk still has 65% more DPS per cost (and more HP, so its overall stats are better.
Instead, look at the concept here: (1) Decent DPS (compared to the high DPS of Hydra and low DPS of Roach) (2) High-range (compared to low range of Roach and mid range of Hydra) (3) Very fragile (compared to Hydra being kinda fragile and Roach being tanky)
That's all there is in the idea for now. Now maybe its damage shouldnt be 24. As I wrote in my initial suggestin it might be better if it had higher damage vs light (or armored) with the skill being the reverse. I haven't figured out yet what creates the most fun interactions.
I think that Ravager should be something like what Big J describe it, unit that is different from Hydralisk and Roach with its role.
My take would be: -7 attack range -doesn't have an active ability -around 30 damage with small AoE -2.5 attack speed(right now it is 0.8) and their attack has 1 second delay before it lands, opponent can evade it. -160-180 HP -2.25 movement speed(like unupgraded Roach), gains movement speed buff with Roach speed upgrade, but only to the 2.75 -can target ground with its attack to destroy force fields
This way I think that they would feel a lot different from Roaches and Hydralisks, as they would be tanky, slow mortar-like units and you wouldn't want just to mass them as they would be terrible in straight engagements. They would support main armies of Roaches and Hydralisks, or Lings and Banelings, maybe even used later in the game if you don't want to go to the Ultralisks for Force Fields, or just to add a bit of AoE against Terran and force opponent to split even more.
Okay, here is my updated version intended to give unique roles to the Hydra, Roach and Ravager.
Hydralisk - 90 HP - Damage changed to 10 +2 vs armored - attack cooldown = 0.73
Ravager - 85 HP - 8 attack range - Damage = 16 + 10 vs light (attack cooldown = 1.3) - Skillshot damage = 35 vs light + 45 vs armored (doesn't oneshot workers) - Skillshot AOE radius = 20-30% larger. - Skillshot CD = 15 secs. - Skillshot range = 8-9 - Movement speed = Still undecided, but it needs to be relatively fast as it is fragile and intended to be repositioned a lot during engagements as it needs to get closer to the enemy armored units to land skillshots and then go back to safety again.
Effect - Zerg without Ravager is slightly weaker vs light units now, while the Ravager - as long as it is protected - deal pretty solid damage through its core attack to light units. - In order to kill armored units on the other hand, you need to land your skillshot while the Hydralisk (in general) is signifciantly better vs armored units
The implication here is that having both Ravagers and Hydras aren't dead neccesities if you consistently can land your skilshots. However, it's much more reliable to have both Hydras, Roaches and Ravagers vs Immortals/Maurauders. Especially since Ravagers are armored and thus esaily can get sniped against Immortals and Maurauders.
On April 02 2015 20:33 Big J wrote: Holy !@#$%^&*, is the Liquipedia article for the Ravager for real? That thing has like marine-dps. :O I have the feeling we won't see many hydralisks in LotV...
Even if they nerf it somewhat, if they keep the design like that the only advantage of hydras is anti-air and we've got much better options for that so who cares.
I start to feel like another issue with the Ravager is related to the weakness of the Immortal. IMO the Immortal must take a stronger role in LOTV with the addition of the Adept (that's anti light) + neccesity of protoss army being stronger in the core midgame. The Hydra would then be better against the Immortal, and the Immortal should be pretty strong against the Ravager.
A design I have been experimenting briefly with this (for the Ravager), is this:
Ravager tweaks - 7-8 attack range - 75 HP (and much much lower model size... smaller than Roach) - Armored - Skillshot cast range slightly reduced (in order to force Ravagers to come into "risky" zone for a brief period before getting back into range). - 24 damage (so very high DPS) - Cooldown on skillshot = 15 seconds (from 10) - Skillshot AOE radius = Increased by 30%. - Movement speed = Not sure about this one. Currently just using default of 2.75, but should it scale w/ Roach speed?
These are just some early testings of mine, but it completely changes how you use the Ravager. Rather than amoving into the enemy line and spamming the ability, you now need to be a lot more careful about when you use it as it is easiy sniped and the CD is higher. On the other hand there is also a stronger reward for landing the skillshot well, and the Ravager does also function well as a long range DPS unit.
In order to further differentiate this from the Hydra, there are a lot other variables that I am considering tweaking such as;
- Hydralisk DPS reduction + HP increased to 90 (Hydralisk becoms the "mid"-tank then) - Ravagers core attack has higher damage vs light or armored and the skillshot has the reverse of that (so its core attack is good vs certain units and the skillshot attack is good vs other types of units).
So lots of potential here with the Ravager, and it's why I still love the concept, but it does need a good deal of work and experimentation.
Glass cannon units? "terrible terrible damage!" 3 tanks can demolish a whole army of them in 2-3 volleys? Bio shredding it?
No thanks.
I'd prefer a very Tanky Ravager, with the buffed skill shot, and decreased DPS. High attack, very slow rate of fire. Siege-type.
But with that, zerg has tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 siege options, is that really necessary? Would this not make lurkers obsolete?
I think that the Ravager is quite a bit different from other "Siege" units.
- Ravager is meant to break FF and deal lots of damage to single immobile units. Counters SiegeTank, Lurker, Forcefield. (Single Target Damage, AntiAir capabilities)
- Lurkers are meant to deal lineal splash DPS, specially strong vs bio and balls of units. They are static when attacking ant don't have a big range until upgraded. (Antideathball, Splash Damage,)
- SwarmHosts are teorically meant to add DPS to the army for free and be able to zone enemies out continously. With LotV changes, it's concieved to flank/harass by launching a wave to deal damage instead of continous launch of units. With flying locusts, they are siege breakers. (Harass, Siege breakers)
- Broodlords are frontal Siege units, that deal big damage from the distance and can move. Can be present in direct engagements, is semi-mobile. Though units, good DPS (Siege, Siege Breakers)
I only see overlapping between new SwarmHosts and Broodlords. Ravager is quite different. Also giving Zerg a ranged unit (6-7 range) that is not squishy is not a bad idea. That's why I think that it doesn't need to be really that efficient in direct fights.
All in all, if you keep DPS/HP as a constant, fights tend to maintain results (obviously, shots to kill is also important, but that's the simplest version of this concept). We are supposed to be making a new version of StarCraft where fights aren't completed in 2 seconds. That's why I don't like the glass-cannon philosphy. What's more, the Ravager, which is a Roach morph and huge in size, should at least have some more HP than the roach.
We are supposed to be making a new version of StarCraft where fights aren't completed in 2 seconds. That's why I don't like the glass-cannon philosphy.
Imo the best way to accomplish this is to add more countermicro opportunities and getting rid of snowball scenarios.
Moreover, notie that I am actually making the Hydra less of a glass cannon here and reducing its DPS? This is a role-swap change primarily, and there are tons of other ways you can effectively reduce DPS in the game while rewarding more micro. The whole tanky short-range Ravager just creates a missed opportunity for more micro to the game. That's not a good thing.
On April 02 2015 22:04 Hider wrote: The tough part of the Ravager is to make it both feel different micro-wise and role-wise from the Roach and the Ravager.
From a micro-perspective, I think its an issue if it stays as a short-range/front-line unit like the Roach as the positional element is lost (and you a-move + spam the skillshot then). For that reason I prefer its more fragile and longer-range and you need to move it in position when you want to cast the skillshot and then quickly get it out of range against.
Yup, the 6range with 4range roaches and 5-6range hydras makes it really hard to stand out currently. So far I have seen quite some roach/ravager armies and they feel much too homogenous. However, the glasscanon you are describing is already in the game in the form of the hydralisk. In particular, I think an important idea for the ravager should be that you do not reward making too many of them. Zerg has many other units for that, the ravager should remain somewhat of a specialist imo.
Your micro idea is nice, but given the dodgable shot the unit already leads to very unique micro play. Whether you have to pull it forward or not. I do however agree that it feels to spamable right now. And I think this will always be the case unless the ravager is somehow limited in its existance, thus my suggestion to give it a weaker attack and a stronger bile. With that design you discourage massive usage of ravagers, because eventually your opponent will just have too many anti-ravager units on the field if you mass them. It however remains a valueable part of your army if used in smaller amounts to complement your core forces with its spell.
On April 02 2015 22:04 Hider wrote: If the Ravager was balanced around very weak core stats, but a much better skillshot, there would be two different solutions: (1) Very low CD (7-12 seconds) + medium damage (25% more damage than it currently deals (2) Medium CD (15 secs) + very high damage (50-100% more damage)
The issue with the former solution is that its gonna feel so spammy that its never properly rewarded to attempt to dodge individual skillshots. The issue with the latter is that it could create more "unforgiveable" moments. You look away for one moment and your entire mineral line is gone or 50% of you army value is lost.
I think therefore one should try to heavily reward countermicro but be careful about not making splitsecond mistakes too punishable. For that reason I prefer that its core stats are pretty decent.
I wouldn't fix on those two solutions to heavily. For example, it could have the medium CD but longer range than now instead of very high damage. Again, the spammy part of the abiltiy is imo best dealt with by punishing too heavy ravager play. E.g. in the case of Terran, you're just going to face too many tanks or bio that stims/drops forward if you make too many ravagers. In the case of Protoss I guess chargelots and blink stalkers would deal relatively easily with my ravager design, as well as air units like carriers. Or as zerg, just overwhelming amounts of roach/hydra or mutalisks or zerglings. But if you had a strong core roach/hydra force you could use those ravagers just to get rid of some pesky targets - tanks, forcefields, static defense - before/during combat, force some extra micro and use choke points to your advantage. Maybe we could even get a form of moving barrage micro from zerg like that.
However, the glasscanon you are describing is already in the game in the form of the hydralisk. In particular, I think an important idea for the ravager should be that you do not reward making too many of them. Zerg has many other units for that, the ravager should remain somewhat of a specialist imo.
I don't know if you've seen the most recent post, but I already highlighted how I would give them unique roles.
For example, it could have the medium CD but longer range than now instead of very high damage
I just don't see why you think a long-range skillshot on a beefy unit would create fun interactions.
Isn't one of the flaws with the current Sc2 that some units never actual take part of the battle? E.g. Tempests and SH and all you attempt to do with those untis is to run away from actual engagements?
I know your not proposing 15+ range here, but when you combine high range on a relatively beefy unit, it effectively reduces the risk-taking of the unit and I don't see that as being a good thing in terms of rewarding actual engagements. But okay, I don't know exactly what you mean by long range, but on the test map, 12.5 feels way too much for me.
The only thing a long range skillshot could add to the game is to force someone that kites to split up his army (instead of just right clicking away). But I don't know if nerfing kiting is best done through the Ravager.
Instead, I think interactions would be so much more fun if it was balanced the other way around: - Relatively modest range on the skillshot with high reward and medium cooldown - Longer range on the standard attack (so it is safe for the most part) but it is very fragile and needs to expose itself to a risk to realize its fullest potential.
The point with the skillshot here is to reward skilled zerg players to utilize their Ravagers in situations where it's - given the core stats of the unit - pretty uncomfortable to use them optimally.
@Hinder some people just reads last page of posts.
What most of us are discussing here is that Zerg doesn't need another glass cannon. Hydralisk has that role, even if gets some +HP buffs and less DPS to compensate (that could be applied to almost all units in the game). In fact, hydralisks should have got that buffs long time ago. Hydraliks have been quite UP for a while (and I think that they still are a bit UP in fact). Ling/Hydralisk gets rolled even by VoidRay/Sentry/Stalker even when some infestors are mixed in.
When they buffed the hydralisk 1 year ago, they simply increased the DPS by 10%, instead of giving +10/20 HP, 1 armor or some speed. +1 armor and +10 HP were ideal to give it some resistance vs burst damage (sentry, bio, phoenix, void ray). But no, they gave more DPS.
So if Hydralisk is by definition the glass cannon "marine" of the Zerg, Ravagers should be another type of unit. Right now, if you look at the stats, they overlap a lot. If ravagers replace hydras in that DPS use, hydralisks get even more useless than now. Hydralisks are and should be good units, not only transitional state to become lurkers or dedicated AA while Ravagers get their job done.
Personally, I think that shortening a bit the range of the bile but decreasing its time to land could work in a "beefy" Ravager.
So if Hydralisk is by definition the glass cannon "marine" of the Zerg, Ravagers should be another type of unit.
Your argument here is basically that becaue the Hydralisk is the glass cannon in HOTS, therefore it also must be the glass cannon in LOTV.
That's a flawed way to look at the game, and instead I believe that we should look at how we can add the most fun interactions to the game and be open to most types of ideas. Based on my arguments presented above, I asses that the game is going to be better if the Hydra gets changed to the midranged glass cannon. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but you should instead try to argue what the disadvantages of a roleswap here (without being overly focussed on specific numbers).
Right now, if you look at the stats, they overlap a lot. If ravagers replace hydras in that DPS use, hydralisks get even more useless than now. Hydralisks are and should be good units, not only transitional state to become lurkers or dedicated AA while Ravagers get their job done.
I think the thing you keep forgetting here is that there is no easy way to fit Ravagers into the game (role-wise). If you don't change unit stats of Roaches or Hydras, they will either be considered a tanky unit along with the Roach or glass-cannon along with the Hydra here.
If you keep it as a Roach-like beefy unit, it's gonna continue to be something you a-move and then you try to hit your skillshots. I don't see that as a terrible thing as I enjoy skillshots, however, I think its far more interesting if you also have to amove it while moving it around during engagements. This is the difference between a good and a potential great solution.
FYI, I also believe that Roaches should be 1 supply and have slightly lower damage in order to strenghten their role as a beefy unit in the midgame while buffing their late game utility.
Update 2: Just increased HP of Ravager to 85 so Ravagers doens't one shot each other ^^
However, the glasscanon you are describing is already in the game in the form of the hydralisk. In particular, I think an important idea for the ravager should be that you do not reward making too many of them. Zerg has many other units for that, the ravager should remain somewhat of a specialist imo.
I don't know if you've seen the most recent post, but I already highlighted how I would give them unique roles.
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into. Specifically, your suggestion to the hydralisk isn't all that different to what it is currently. +10HP, -2/+2 vs armored, -0.02cooldown is all rather minor from a design perspective.
For example, it could have the medium CD but longer range than now instead of very high damage
I just don't see why you think a long-range skillshot on a beefy unit would create fun interactions. understand the point of a long-range here.
Isn't what you want to have units that gets closer to the battle to expose them selves to a risk-taking? Imo that's an issue with Tempests and SH, they can stay at a very high range and those never get into a danger situation. I know your not proposing 15+ range here, but when you combine high range on a relatively beefy unit, it effectively reduces the risk-taking and removes potential interactions.
In this situation, it makes a ton more sense for me to do the reverse: - Relatively modest range on the skillshot with high reward and medium cooldown - Longer range on the standard attack (so it is safe for the most part) but it is very fragile and needs to expose itself to a risk to realize its fullest potential.
The point with the skillshot here is to reward skilled zerg players to utilize their Ravagers in situations where it's - given the core stats of the unit - pretty uncomfortable to use them optimally.
I don't think the ravager with 120HP/1armor is particulary beefy for a 100/100/3 price currently. The thing with the longer range is that there aren't just marines and marauders in the game that you are going to be fighting against. As I see it, you ideally are going to be massing Tanks and Cyclones and Disruptors when the opponent goes ravager, your design, my design or the current design. Furthermore it doesn't matter whether it is longer range or shorter range for the core micro interaction. There is a marker on the ground that you want to dodge, regardless from which position it was fired. Now you additionally want to bring in the element of exposing the ravager by making it short range, but in my opinion that would heavily cut into the ability to use ravagers against anything but short-mid ranged compositions. Which I feel like I don't need the ravager for, because that's what roaches and hydras (and the new lurker) do already. Amongst playing melee focused to begin with.
@Hider, On The Late Game someone said the radius of corrosive bile was only 9, but I'm not sure whether to believe that. 12.5 seems quite high, are you sure it's correct? Anyhow, I think high range for corrosive bile is not that terrible. If you restrict the range too much you lose out on a lot of interactions, for instance you can't really cast bile behind the enemy army anymore. And is the proposed cooldown in blizz-time or in real-time?
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into.
I guess I am different here as I am not particularly focused on solutions that at most can make the game 5-10% better (if more ambitios changes can make it 25% better). From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends (exactly becasue there are so many stats Blizzard hasn't tweaked over 6 years, while Riot constantly tests numerous variables in order to get the best interactions).
I don't think the ravager with 120HP/1armor is particulary beefy for a 100/100/3 price currently.
The thing to consider when deciding on HP and range (+ movement speed) is whether it creates interesting counterplay. So if the Ravager can fire its skillshot at 13 range and it has high HP, what does that really add to the game? I just don't imagine a scenario where I think - wow its so awesome it has a high range here, now XXX type of micro possible (is my imagination bad here?).
but I'm not sure whether to believe that. 12.5 seems quite high, are you sure it's correct?
On the custom map its 12.5 (unless I changed that number yesterday and forgot I did that).
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into.
I guess I am different here as I don't really care about solutions that can make the game 5-10% better. From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends.
You bring to the discussion preconceived notions of "fun interactions" or what "would make ME playing LotV".
Regarding the Ravager: Is a bio-opener now viable against the ravagers? I feel like marauders don't cut it anymore and ravagers own bunkers. Cyclones seems like a must have in TvZ vs. ravagers And since Terran get's AA with the cyclone and Thor, y even build starports till the late game for Banshee/BCs?
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into.
I guess I am different here as I don't really care about solutions that at most can make the game 5-10% better (if more ambitios changes can make it 25% better). From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends (exactly becasue Blizzard has so many stats they haven't tweaked for 6 years, while Riot constantly tweaks and tests lots of variables).
I don't think the ravager with 120HP/1armor is particulary beefy for a 100/100/3 price currently.
The thing to consider when deciding on HP and range (+ movement speed) is whether it creates interesting counterplay. So if the Ravager can fire its skillshot at 13 range and it has high HP, what does that really add to the game?
And you compare that to the Ravager at 85 HP and 8 casting range. This Ravager needs to take a risk to fire off its skillshot where it can be killed if the enemy tries to focus fire it.
But again, if what your looking for here is just very small tweaks (so it becomes an amove unit + skillshotter) you can indeed increase the range and balance it around that.
but I'm not sure whether to believe that. 12.5 seems quite high, are you sure it's correct?
On the custom map its 12.5 (unless I changed that number yesterday and forgot I did that).
From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends (exactly becasue Blizzard has so many stats they haven't tweaked for 6 years, while Riot constantly tweaks and tests lots of variables).
Oh pls, riot is totally unable to balance and design their game. How many champs are truly viable AND fun to play? They have over 100 champs, all they do is rotating the meta (and thus the viable champs) every few months, very good design choice indeed...
About the Ravager: As long as this unit has a high dps autoattack AND the spell it's simply too good not to build. Change one of them and this might change
OK, so I'm under the same impression of Grumbels that the corrosive bile right now had like 8-9range, but I haven't ever seen stats on it. If it was 12.5 currently, that would already be more than I'd be aiming for (which would be like 10-11... so less than a siege tank, but enough to pick off the outer tanks without being shot by the whole siege line).
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into.
I guess I am different here as I don't really care about solutions that can make the game 5-10% better. From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends.
You bring to the discussion preconceived notions of "fun interactions" or what "would make ME playing LotV".
Absolutely pointless discussion.
Is it a pointless discussion to look at ways which the Ravager can fit into the game while creating unique micro interactions and giving it a unique role? In a forum where LOTV is discussed?
I disagree there, but I respect that other people are satifised with less ambitious changes. In terms of what Blizzard is most likely to implement, I don't think it matters whether its ambitious or not.
The chance of Blizzard looking at this thread and actually being inspired by anything is <1%. So everyone is probably wasting your time if you think your ideas actually are going to contribute positvely to the development of the game. This is simply a discussion for the sake of enjoying a discussion about gamedesign.
But anyway, my point here is that I want a very ambitous project from Blizzard here, and I think there are tons of other people like me, who no longer play the game and only really wants to come back if something incredibly awesome (rather than decent) is added. The Disruptor is incredibly awesome, and I want more of that standard into the game.
The Ravager is an ambitious idea but with a mediocore implementation.
On April 02 2015 23:54 Big J wrote: OK, so I'm under the same impression of Grumbels that the corrosive bile right now had like 8-9range, but I haven't ever seen stats on it. If it was 12.5 currently, that would already be more than I'd be aiming for (which would be like 10-11... so less than a siege tank, but enough to pick off the outer tanks without being shot by the whole siege line).
Yeh when I was suggeting lower range it was based on my tests with it in the LOTV unit tester. I guess I can follow the idea that giving the current role it has, maybe it would be slightly better if it was balanced around a higher range (but not really sure - still don't see the big potential on it as a short range unit).
On April 02 2015 23:54 Big J wrote: OK, so I'm under the same impression of Grumbels that the corrosive bile right now had like 8-9range, but I haven't ever seen stats on it. If it was 12.5 currently, that would already be more than I'd be aiming for (which would be like 10-11... so less than a siege tank, but enough to pick off the outer tanks without being shot by the whole siege line).
Yeh when I was suggeting lower range it was based on my tests with it in the LOTV unit tester. I guess I can follow the idea that giving the current role it has, maybe it would be slightly better if it was balanced around a higher range (but not really sure - still don't see the big potential on it as a short range unit).
I'm not really informed, but didn't people say that roaches had 4.75 movement speed when burrowed in the unit tester? (which turned out to be a bug obviously) The stats might not be perfectly correct there.
I fear that's not going to happen. I'm trying to form my arguments as much as possible around working with the ravager. If we have any chance with forum discussions to influence what blizzard is doing, it is by giving specific suggestions and not so much by suggesting bigger reworks. If that was the case, I think everyone would have much stronger opinions what each and every unit should do and be changed into.
I guess I am different here as I don't really care about solutions that can make the game 5-10% better. From my perspective, the game is very very far off from where I would consider playing this over League of Legends.
You bring to the discussion preconceived notions of "fun interactions" or what "would make ME playing LotV".
Absolutely pointless discussion.
So then argue with his perspective, nobody is stopping you.
On April 03 2015 00:05 Ramiz1989 wrote: Bomber is offracing as Zerg right now against MMA, MMA is laughing as he can't kill Ultralisks at all, they are literally immortal now rofl.
hahah i just tuned in, those ultras look so much better than they are in hots
On April 02 2015 23:54 Big J wrote: OK, so I'm under the same impression of Grumbels that the corrosive bile right now had like 8-9range, but I haven't ever seen stats on it. If it was 12.5 currently, that would already be more than I'd be aiming for (which would be like 10-11... so less than a siege tank, but enough to pick off the outer tanks without being shot by the whole siege line).
Yeh when I was suggeting lower range it was based on my tests with it in the LOTV unit tester. I guess I can follow the idea that giving the current role it has, maybe it would be slightly better if it was balanced around a higher range (but not really sure - still don't see the big potential on it as a short range unit).
I'm not really informed, but didn't people say that roaches had 4.75 movement speed when burrowed in the unit tester? (which turned out to be a bug obviously) The stats might not be perfectly correct there.
I think Jakatak might have researched an upgrade that was in the unit tester but not in the actual game (or something like that). Roaches whne burrowed "only" have 2.75 speed in LOTV.
On April 02 2015 23:53 helius788 wrote: Regarding the Ravager: Is a bio-opener now viable against the ravagers? I feel like marauders don't cut it anymore and ravagers own bunkers. Cyclones seems like a must have in TvZ vs. ravagers And since Terran get's AA with the cyclone and Thor, y even build starports till the late game for Banshee/BCs?
Against Ravagers you either go Hellion Banshee openers or Tank drop openers. Of course both are vulnerable to 2 base mutas so diligent scouting and a appropriate follow up is required, no greedy 3 CC double Engi bay shenanigans.
They don't. If they did, that would be a release, not a beta.
This is nonsense. Balance isn't the only thing to take into account when releasing a game. They need to have proper models, removal of bugs, sounds, redeisgn of old units and the new units must be implemented properly as well.
The point here is that these balance issues weren't unexpected, and Blizzard has had lots of months since Blizzcon to come up with ways to give toss a proper midgame in order to prepare them for a world where Forcefields can be countered and they need to take bases faster. All they have managed to do since then is create a shadow-unit that doesn't really fit in anywhere....
Exactly because this is a beta, they should have been experimented with more radical changes that potentially could be balanced, but would require testing to confirm (and tweak).
Like why not reduce the cost of the Robo Facility to like 150/50 and/or make templar tech more accessible as well? These changes would boost toss in the midgame. Maybe it would result in unintended consequences or maybe it could actually result in giving toss a much more solid core army composition. But that's the point of the beta, you test out changes that theoretically could work, but which you are unsure of in practice.
On the other hand, testing out stuff that's obviously imbalanced is wasting alot of playtesters time.
What the fuck? Wasting their time? They don't have to play test anything! My God. I honestly cannot believe the amount of Protoss players bitching in this thread. It's not even a constructive type of complaining, either. It's more of a "Wah Wah" complaining, which is annoying. Stop. Anyway, balance may not be the only thing Blizzard is looking to get feedback on from the beta, but I can tell you right now that it is certainly the most important thing. Anyway, stop crying about it. They've made some radical changes and I'm sure balances are to come soon. P.S. You're not the only one, by the way, but you're certainly one of them.
On April 03 2015 00:05 Ramiz1989 wrote: Bomber is offracing as Zerg right now against MMA, MMA is laughing as he can't kill Ultralisks at all, they are literally immortal now rofl.
hahah i just tuned in, those ultras look so much better than they are in hots
I can't join the stream now, but I can imagine that the effective HP of the Ultras has increased significantly against all sorts of units. Against units that do 10 HP per shot, this means their effective HP has DOUBLED, as does the efficiency of Transfuse when fighting against these units. Simply crazy.
Oh pls, riot is totally unable to balance and design their game. How many champs are truly viable AND fun to play?
I am not talking about balance here (but atm it is generally accepted that there is a high amount of viability of different champs). The point is that Riot are masters at refining numers to get the best interactions. Over the years they have tweaked stats of projectile speed, model sizes and various damage-numbers to allow for great counterplay. Most champs needs to get into a "danger"-zone before they can utilize their fullest potential, which creates excitement.
Then lets look at changes Blizzard has made: Tempest and Lurkers are rewarded for staying at super long range and never actually being part of an actual "engagement": Then they add an abduct where you can click on enemy units and there is no counterplay to it.... Or now: Creates Immortal where you press a button in order to "micro".
For each champion, Riot experiemtns with several variables where Blizzard is more like "hey let's add this cool new unit to the game" or "hey this cool guy should get an ability to be microable". Why is there no tweaks to damagepoint, range, projectile, turn rate, speed or movement speed for any of the units that desperetately needs it?
TLDR: I don't care about balance really. I care about interactions, and I wanna see Blizzard be ambitious and do whatever to improve them.
On April 02 2015 18:06 Umpteen wrote: Personally, I like the way it's going. It feels fast-paced, even though there are generally more bases. Are games over too quickly? I don't know. I think I'd rather have long games be rare, epic, memorable events than have casters desperately trying to fill while we wait for the one big decisive fight.
wouldn't it be cool though if they at least tried to make most of the games not boil down to 1 deathball fight? unless adding stuff like super burrow roaches, protoss nuke-unit, super prisms and keeping sutff like muta balls and speedivacs actually supposed to be their attempts at it.
I think that's exactly what Blizzard is trying to do. And I think the resource change is how they are going to do it. LOTV is, for a few reasons, quite scrappy, which I'm enjoying. I think this is certainly better than big deathball fights and I hope the game stays that way. However, I think it's so scrappy right now because there is no resemblance of a meta game yet AND because of the resource change.
Oh pls, riot is totally unable to balance and design their game. How many champs are truly viable AND fun to play?
I am not talking about balance here (but atm it is generally accepted that there is a high amount of viability of different champs). The point is that Riot are masters at refining numers to get the best interactions. Over the years they have tweaked stats of projectile speed, model sizes and damage to allow for great counterplay.
Then lets look at Blizzard: Adds an abduct where you can click on enemy units and there is no counterplay to it.... Or Immortal that has had the same low movement speed, and Blizzard's solutions is to add a button you active to get a shield...
Riot are masters to make the champs homogeneous (which is also the reason the meta in lol is EXTREMELY important, some champs are just way better at doing X than the other alternatives), that's it... TBF, i didn't play league in the last 2-3 months. If Blizzard would go the same way and just make the races and units very much alike, you would be happy? Also the genres are so different, it just makes NO SENSE to compare the two tbh, in league all you do is to "micro" that one champ, in starcraft there is so much more to do => some things just have to work with little "counterplay", otherwise it would be almost impossible to have different races AND balance. But i guess this isn't the best place to argue about riot's design and balance philosophy ^^
Riot are masters to make the champs homogeneous (which is also the reason the meta in lol is EXTREMELY important, some champs are just way better at doing X than the other alternatives), that's it... TBF, i didn't play league in the last 2-3 months. If Blizzard would go the same way and just make the races and units very much alike, you would be happy?
The whole homgoneous-thing is mostly a consequence of Riot priortizing counterplay over hardcounters. In an RTS, the whole homogenous-thing doens't make sense at all. Like are Hydras and Marines homgenous and is that a cause for concern? This seems like an absolute weird place to move the direction at.
if anything, I feel your going on a strawman where you want to discredit Riot for some of the good thing it has done by moving the discussion to "stale meta", when I am talking about the fact that LOL has lots of counterplay/micro and Sc2 doesn't. (and explaining how that is a result of the fact that Riot tweaks more variables than Blizzard).
Also the genres are so different, it just makes NO SENSE to compare the two tbh, in league all you do is to "micro" that one champ, in starcraft there is so much more to do => some things just have to work with little "counterplay", otherwise it would be almost impossible to have different races AND balance.
Look, counterplay is counterplay. Yes counterplay works differently in an RTS and in a MOBA, but from the perspective of the developer, there is a common ground: TWEAK NUMBERS TO IMPROVE INTERACTIONS!!!!
The fact that Riot actually has managed to create lots of high skill champs with potential for outplay when you can only control one of them at once --> A sign they are tweaking the right variables. The fact that there are so many still in Sc2 that are rewarded for amoving or pressing a simple button --> That's a sign that blizzard aren't tweaking the right variables.
TLDR: I want Blizzard to go through all the numbers of units in Sc2 (as Riot does) --> Find ways to make these micro interactions and unique roles as interesting as possible.
They don't. If they did, that would be a release, not a beta.
This is nonsense. Balance isn't the only thing to take into account when releasing a game. They need to have proper models, removal of bugs, sounds, redeisgn of old units and the new units must be implemented properly as well.
The point here is that these balance issues weren't unexpected, and Blizzard has had lots of months since Blizzcon to come up with ways to give toss a proper midgame in order to prepare them for a world where Forcefields can be countered and they need to take bases faster. All they have managed to do since then is create a shadow-unit that doesn't really fit in anywhere....
Exactly because this is a beta, they should have been experimented with more radical changes that potentially could be balanced, but would require testing to confirm (and tweak).
Like why not reduce the cost of the Robo Facility to like 150/50 and/or make templar tech more accessible as well? These changes would boost toss in the midgame. Maybe it would result in unintended consequences or maybe it could actually result in giving toss a much more solid core army composition. But that's the point of the beta, you test out changes that theoretically could work, but which you are unsure of in practice.
On the other hand, testing out stuff that's obviously imbalanced is wasting alot of playtesters time.
What the fuck? Wasting their time? They don't have to play test anything! My God. I honestly cannot believe the amount of Protoss players bitching in this thread. It's not even a constructive type of complaining, either. It's more of a "Wah Wah" complaining, which is annoying. Stop. Anyway, balance may not be the only thing Blizzard is looking to get feedback on from the beta, but I can tell you right now that it is certainly the most important thing. Anyway, stop crying about it. They've made some radical changes and I'm sure balances are to come soon. P.S. You're not the only one, by the way, but you're certainly one of them.
Blizzard often fails basic competency tests.
I think their motivations can be quite arcane and often based on complex business considerations. For instance, you'll notice that they didn't bother with even a single pure balance change in the beta. This probably leaves the beta in an imbalanced state. Now you could wonder whether they decided to save on internal playtesting resources by not bothering with balance changes, or maybe they felt that adding balance changes would be pointless given the limitations of internal testing, or maybe they wanted to focus purely on high level design or whatever. The explanations are endless, but it still leaves the players with an imbalanced game.
I think a company has a responsibility of basic competence to the people dependent on their product, and as such Blizzard should be called out for not living up to this.
As protoss: I don't mind ravager design at all, I think it's quite fun actually. Definitely needs tweaking though, it currently has WAY too much synergy with mass roach midgame attacks. We need forcefields or massively buffed early midgame options. Especially since even immortals got nerfed hard.
On April 03 2015 00:36 DarkLordOlli wrote: As protoss: I don't mind ravager design at all, I think it's quite fun actually. Definitely needs tweaking though, it currently has WAY too much synergy with mass roach midgame attacks. We need forcefields or massively buffed early midgame options. Especially since even immortals got nerfed hard.
I think Huk said it best yesterday: It doesn't really matter what tech protoss goes, zerg always should build ravagers. The same should be true in ZvZ tbh. Not sure about ZvT though
Riot are masters to make the champs homogeneous (which is also the reason the meta in lol is EXTREMELY important, some champs are just way better at doing X than the other alternatives), that's it... TBF, i didn't play league in the last 2-3 months. If Blizzard would go the same way and just make the races and units very much alike, you would be happy?
The whole homgoneous-thing is mostly a consequence of Riot priortizing counterplay over hardcounters. In an RTS, the whole homogenous-thing doens't make sense at all. Like are Hydras and Marines homgenous?? It just doesn't make sense to talk about stale meta and homogene stuff in the context of what Blizzard could learn from Riot.
Also the genres are so different, it just makes NO SENSE to compare the two tbh, in league all you do is to "micro" that one champ, in starcraft there is so much more to do => some things just have to work with little "counterplay", otherwise it would be almost impossible to have different races AND balance.
Look, counterplay is counterplay. Yes counterplay works differently in an RTS and in a MOBA, but from the perspective of the developer, there is a common ground: TWEAK NUMBERS TO IMPROVE INTERACTIONS!!!!
The fact that Riot actually has managed to create lots of high skill champs with potential for outplay when you can only control one of them at once --> A sign they are tweaking the right variables. The fact that there are so many still in Sc2 that are rewarded for amoving or pressing a simple button --> That's a sign that blizzard aren't tweaking the right variables.
TLDR: I want Blizzard to go through all the numbers of units in Sc2 (as Riot does) --> Find ways to make these micro interactions and unique roles as interesting as possible.
Don't get me wrong, i also think there should be MORE interesting micro interactions in sc2. But i also think you simply cannot expect to have microintensive counterplay to every single spell (you mentioned abduct) and unit in a rts which is very much about macro and multitasking. Sometimes Unit/Spell X just HAS TO WORK without the fear of it doing almost nothign when the enemy microes well (counterplay) against it. Different genres
On April 03 2015 00:36 DarkLordOlli wrote: As protoss: I don't mind ravager design at all, I think it's quite fun actually. Definitely needs tweaking though, it currently has WAY too much synergy with mass roach midgame attacks. We need forcefields or massively buffed early midgame options. Especially since even immortals got nerfed hard.
Well, Roaches have now burrow movement by default so I don't think that Force Fields are problem at all even without Ravagers. Funny thing is that Ravagers were supposed to be the solution to Force Fields that we finally got and instead they are used just for zoning out and their idiotic dps.
As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
On April 03 2015 00:44 JacobShock wrote: As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
it's not lair tech? i agree then yeah that is super good for hatch tech, probably should move it
But i also think you simply cannot expect to have microintensive counterplay to every single spell (you mentioned abduct) and unit in a rts which is very much about macro and multitasking.
Too an extent I know what you mean, but I think Blizzard also needs to rethink how spellcassters are designed. When I experiemnted with changes to spellcasters I realized that it indeed was annoying if you didn't land you skills reliably.
So then I thought, why isn't this an issue in LOL?
Answer: Because you have lower cooldowns on your abiliites/higher mana regen. After some experimentation, I found that if you could cast your abilites once early on in the battle (even if you had max energy) and then cast it for the second time 5-15 seconds later, it actually made it feel more acceptable to be "outmicroed" (read: miss skillshot).
But ofc if you just add lower CD/higher mana regen to spellcasters --> they are gonna feel more spamable in an RTS environemnt. That's true and it's why we should reconsider if spellcasters should be 2 supply.
So from a general perspective, this is how spellcasters should be designed: - 100 max energy (from 200) - Higher energy regeneration - An increase in supply - Slower projectiles - Higher cast range (as a small compensation for the projectiles being slower). - Slow movement/lock-abilites imo doesn't feel good in an RTS, so I would like to see them replaced w/ abilites that synergizes with your own units (e.g. modified version of Dark Swarm). .
(FYI, why are there no line-skillshots in Sc2???)
As a quick example of one of those abilites that work on your own units that actually exist in Sc2, Guardian Shield. This is how it currently works: Sentry activates Guardian shield for + 2 armor .... .and that's the end of that interaction. Now let me propose a different solution.
Tweaked Guardian Shield
- Lower radius - 30% damage reduction vs everything - Sentry Model size increased significantly. - Sentry HP reduced to 30/30 from 40/40 - Sentry DPS increased by 10-20% - Sentry movement speed increased to 2.75
See what the effect of this Sentry would be? The damage reduction effect is actually really strong now and combined with the lower HP, higher DPS and larger model size --> Enemy is heavily rewarded for target firing the sentry.
On the other hand, the Sentry is faster and more responsive now and can react to the focus fire by pulling away. But since the radius of this new Guardian Shield is very low, it cannot stay too far out of the battle for too long. Hence it needs to be part of the engagement to function optimally, but only the best players can keep their Sentries alive consistently.
The above is a quick example of how you could create a unique microinteraction to protoss that furthermore would buff the Sentry (probably needed now) and help with protoss balance.
TLDR; My point isn't that you should copy exactly what Riot does (there are large differences between an RTS and a MOBA). Instead, the point is that there are so many opportunites to add more micro everywhere into the game.
Carriers are so awesome. Now that the building time is decent and you can even use them as harassing units (release interceptors in mineral lines) I'm just going mass carriers in every matchup (the tempest nerf as well...).
On April 03 2015 00:44 JacobShock wrote: As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
it's not lair tech? i agree then yeah that is super good for hatch tech, probably should move it
It's just straight up too good right now I think. It's like having 3/2*hydralisks for the price of 3/2*hydralisks, but they also have corrosive bile which is quite powerful.
On April 03 2015 00:49 Hider wrote: So from a general perspective, this is how spellcasters should be designed: - 100 max energy (from 200) - HIgher energy regeneration - Higher supply cost/cost overall - Slower projectiles - Slow movement/lock-abilites imo doesn't feel good in an RTS (even if they have a bit of counterplay), so get rid of them and replace them with abilites that synergizes with your own units (like a modified version of Dark Swarm).
I think this is an artifact of the 90's. Energy for spell casters is essentially a resource, which you should carefully nurture and build up. This possibly fits for a slower paced game which can accommodate turtling and lengthy periods of doing nothing, but which falls apart in a more modern high-paced game since either the casters never have energy or you encourage turtling for more energy. A simple example is the sentry, which can gather quite a bit of energy during the early game as nothing is happening; this energy can then be leveraged into a powerful all-in. A more sinister example is the ghost circa 2011.
On April 03 2015 00:44 JacobShock wrote: As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
it's not lair tech? i agree then yeah that is super good for hatch tech, probably should move it
I dont think that would change much since you want roach speed for ravager/roach pushes anyway. It would take away the super quick 4:30 one/two base ravager timings, but do nothing for the unit in the long run.
TvT seems really fun from MMA's stream. You pretty much have to open cyclone, but after the early game their role declines and you have more mobile marine tank and much more skirmishes all over the map.
On April 03 2015 00:44 JacobShock wrote: As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
it's not lair tech? i agree then yeah that is super good for hatch tech, probably should move it
I dont think that would change much since you want roach speed for ravager/roach pushes anyway. It would take away the super quick 4:30 one/two base ravager timings, but do nothing for the unit in the long run.
well maybe it needs to be pushed back far enough so that Protoss can deal with a super strong early timing attack.
On April 03 2015 00:36 DarkLordOlli wrote: As protoss: I don't mind ravager design at all, I think it's quite fun actually. Definitely needs tweaking though, it currently has WAY too much synergy with mass roach midgame attacks. We need forcefields or massively buffed early midgame options. Especially since even immortals got nerfed hard.
What we need is for the adept to be the "core" unit we asked for. The idea they had for it is cool, and I was excited at first, but the more I watch the more it becomes apparent that it isn't something protoss needs at all right now. With the immortal nerf (which is a good thing for the game as a whole) It seems like we need a tanky ranged unit that can deal with armored units early on without pigeon holing us into 1 tech path for the midgame. Because the real issue isn't the ravager attacks, those will get solved. It's the muta switches that come later that look too strong when you have 900 gas in disrupters and a bunch of zealots left over from holding the ravager push. Then again, winding mutas back to WoL stats might be an option given the two new solid mid game units they have.
Anyway I don't think they should change anything quite yet. All that could very well prove to be bullshit.
With the immortal nerf (which is a good thing for the game as a whole) It seems like we need a tanky ranged unit that can deal with armored units early on without pigeon holing us into 1 tech path for the midgame.
I keep thinking that the unit you are talking about here is the Immortal? Why are you happy that this has received an overall nerf? Is it because its boring to control? Is it becuase it is produced out of an expensive production facility?
If so, aren't those issues easily adressed?
I think this is an artifact of the 90's. Energy for spell casters is essentially a resource, which you should carefully nurture and build up. This possibly fits for a slower paced game which can accommodate turtling and lengthy periods of doing nothing, but which falls apart in a more modern high-paced game since either the casters never have energy or you encourage turtling for more energy. A simple example is the sentry, which can gather quite a bit of energy during the early game as nothing is happening; this energy can then be leveraged into a powerful all-in. A more sinister example is the ghost circa 2011.
Yeh I guess so. It's just something that noone has ever questioned before. But when you look at it just seems so dumb that you only can have spellcasters where the enemy has no countermicro, as it would be too annoying to waste mana on something that the enemy can dodge.
Should the disruptor have an outwardly directed damage gradient so that units closer to the center of the purification nova receive more damage, similar to the siege tank attack?
Tbh, the tuning for the disruptor seems a bit off. It's immune to things that maybe should counter it like forcefield and fungal, and it seems way too expensive and hit-or-miss. I don't think a unit this expensive should essentially be a suicide unit, but maybe synergy with the warp prism helps out in adding survivability.
Also, this is a pet issue, but why is the disruptor immune to purification nova? It seems unnecessary.
I think this is an artifact of the 90's. Energy for spell casters is essentially a resource, which you should carefully nurture and build up. This possibly fits for a slower paced game which can accommodate turtling and lengthy periods of doing nothing, but which falls apart in a more modern high-paced game since either the casters never have energy or you encourage turtling for more energy. A simple example is the sentry, which can gather quite a bit of energy during the early game as nothing is happening; this energy can then be leveraged into a powerful all-in. A more sinister example is the ghost circa 2011.
Yeh I guess so. It's just something that noone has ever questioned before. But when you look at it just seems so dumb that you only can have spellcasters where the enemy has no countermicro, as it would be too annoying to waste mana on something that the enemy can dodge.
Even in Brood War the best spell casters were probably the medic and the defiler, which would always have energy. I think that might be a good point: if something is too expensive you can only use it in situations where there is no risk of your opponent avoiding it. On the other hand, there is something to be said about expensive spells that are highly impactful and that have strategic value rather than simply tactical value.
I don't think a unit this expensive should essentially be a suicide unit, but
I gotta give some credit to Blizzard here (after a long rant). The huge Warpprism pick-up range actually make this not a suicide-unit, but a really high-skill cap unit. If your good you can detonate and then have your WP postioned to pick it up afterwards.
Mech vs Bio TvT seems pretty good as well from MMA stream. Much more aggressive expanding from the mech player. 25 minutes so far of nearly non stop fighting.
But i also think you simply cannot expect to have microintensive counterplay to every single spell (you mentioned abduct) and unit in a rts which is very much about macro and multitasking.
Too an extent I know what you mean, but I think Blizzard also needs to complete rethink how spellcassters are designed. When I experiemnted with changes to spellcasters I realized that it indeed was annoying if you didn't land you skills reliably.
So then I thought, why isn't this an issue in LOL?
Answer: Because you have lower cooldowns on your abiliites/higher mana regen.
But ofc if you just add lower CD/higher mana regen to spellcasters --> they are gonna feel more spamable in an RTS environemnt. That's true and it's why we should reconsider if spellcasters should be 2 supply.
So from a general perspective, this is how spellcasters should be designed: - 100 max energy (from 200) - Higher energy regeneration - Higher supply cost/cost overall - Slower projectiles - Slow movement/lock-abilites imo doesn't feel good in an RTS (even if they have a bit of counterplay), so get rid of them and replace them with abilites that synergizes with your own units (like a modified version of Dark Swarm).
FYI, why are there no line-skillshots in Sc2 Also, let's look at Guardian Shield: Sentry activates Guardian shield for + 2 armor .... .That's the end of that interaction.
Now let's imagine this Guardan Shield thing was completely tweaked:
- Lower radius - 30% damage reduction vs everything - Sentry Model size increased significantly. - Sentry HP reduced to 30/30 from 40/40 - Sentry DPS increased by 10-20% - Sentry movement speed increased to 2.75
See what the effect of this Sentry would be? The damage reduction effect is actually really strong now and combined with the lower HP, higher DPS and larger model size - Your really rewearded for target firing the sentry now. On the other hand, the Sentry is faster and more responsive now and can react to the focus fire by pulling away. But since the radius of this new Guardian Shield is very low, it cannot stay too far out of the battle for too long. Those it needs to be part of the engagement to function optimally, but only the best players can keep their Sentries alive consistently.
The above is just an exmaple of how you could create a unique microinteraction to protoss that furthermore would buff the Sentry (probably needed now) and help with protoss balance.
in LoL, timing the spells are far more important than spamming, until you reach the mid to late game with enough mana regen and some cdr items and your spells are safe to spam in long distance with short cool down like ezreal.
Spamming spells in mid late game in general is only for zoning and poking and clearing minion push, in the actual engagement, the most critical skills must be landed, even more so than SC2.
in SC2, it goes for the route that each spell casters can't spam a lot of spell, but you can build a lot of them so you will have enough available and even then, you have to make sure you have enough actual damage units. LoL is about no spamming in actual engagement, landing spell on right target that make or break your team battle.
LoL is in an environment that you can start as a viking fighting against an ultra, eventually after level-ing and map control etc, you can help your total 5 men terran team to win against the zerg.
SC2 is an environment where you should be having the right unit dealing the right amount of damage at the right time and so on.
And for SC2, you only really have so much time for micro that you have to place priorities. Making one unit more important will simply mean less micro for another. Look at bio mine in TvZ, no terran has time to target fire the mines in an engagements because they need to split the bio.
making your sentries that strong will only mean less blink stalkers (or some other micro protoss will be giving up) in the engagement.
I don't think a unit this expensive should essentially be a suicide unit, but
I gotta give some credit to Blizzard here (after a long rant). The huge Warpprism pick-up range actually make this not a suicide-unit, but a really high-skill cap unit. If your good you can detonate and then have your WP postioned to pick it up afterwards.
I wonder how it would have worked if it was opposite. That is, its has a very fast base movement speed, and activating its ability slows it down.
I don't think a unit this expensive should essentially be a suicide unit, but
I gotta give some credit to Blizzard here (after a long rant). The huge Warpprism pick-up range actually make this not a suicide-unit, but a really high-skill cap unit. If your good you can detonate and then have your WP postioned to pick it up afterwards.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
I don't think a unit this expensive should essentially be a suicide unit, but
I gotta give some credit to Blizzard here (after a long rant). The huge Warpprism pick-up range actually make this not a suicide-unit, but a really high-skill cap unit. If your good you can detonate and then have your WP postioned to pick it up afterwards.
I wonder how it would have worked if it was opposite. That is, its has a very fast base movement speed, and activating its ability slows it down.
It'll be useless and never hit anything? Units should be able to execute their basic functions (explode close to a target in this case), that's the starting point for design.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
Yeh true, but I went from thinking "this is the dumbest thing ever" to "maybe this would work better if it was included along with the Warp Prism speed upgrade.
On April 03 2015 00:44 JacobShock wrote: As a zerg player who has been watching stream constantly since launch, I think Ravager should be available at lair tech. its a little too powerful against pvz FE.
it's not lair tech? i agree then yeah that is super good for hatch tech, probably should move it
I dont think that would change much since you want roach speed for ravager/roach pushes anyway. It would take away the super quick 4:30 one/two base ravager timings, but do nothing for the unit in the long run.
I am just saying its a start. The ravager shouldn't be hatch tech regardless, its just crazy.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
Yeh true, but I went from thinking "this is the dumbest thing ever" to "maybe this would work better if it was included along with the Warp Prism speed upgrade.
This is still the dumbest thing ever except cyclones. Including it with warp prism speed would maybe make a little sense, but I'm pretty adamant this is a bad idea that makes the warp prism something you just can't punish without air units, which is bad design.
I am surely not jealous of the Blizzard Balance team. Their job must be hell, beta out for 2 days and everybody is already throwing out suggestions, how the game could get sooo much better.
From watching streams I am quite happy how things seem to be going. I stopped HotS basically a year ago because I found the gameplay stale and boring ( I play P and well, fuck Colossus and sentries, I used to play Broodwar--> I don't like that kind of lazy unit design). In my opinion a big shakeup was overdue.
From watching a bit of play, I have to say I really like the economy change so far, speeds up things a bit, encourages more little fights in midgame, because players tend to be more spread out on the map.
The combination of disruptor and prism looks a bit like shuttle+reaver. You will not do to much at once against a good opponent, becuase he will spread to minimze damage, but you can rescue the disruptor with the prism and try again at another location or a bit later at the same one. It encourages microing on both sides, attacker and defender, I like that. If you manage to get a good hit off, it seems to be very satisfying and devastating if you suffer one. Seems much more fun than Colossus+ a-move.
Adept seems to be like the HotS reaper, an early scouting tool, perhaps get a probe, but atleast get a bit of scouting info.
Perhaps even carriers can get useful again, but that is just a wild dream of me, I guess. But having stargate play as viable option over the course of a game would be awesome.
Cyclone looks a bit over the top right now, it just beats everything. I don't have a problem with the unit per se, but it would be nice if you would have to micromanage the lock on ability, auto lock on seems kinda boring. Combined with the tank drops, a revival of mech strategies seems to be possible.
Same with the "mortar" thing of the ravager, it would be nice if you would have to micromanage it. Overall I like the Zerg changes so far, it makes midgame of Zerg stronger and staying on roaches+hydras for longer time (because of lurker and ravager) more viable, perhaps you won't be forced to either go ling+bane+muta or T3. More options is a good thing and perhaps we'll even see a comeback of crackling+ultra because they are both better now.
Overall I think they want to get away from the hardcounters a bit (I just looove that). Ultras+lings stronger, immortal+colossus weaker, mech pushed. Just from watching streams a bit, it looks like units that tend to hardcounter shit were made weaker (immortal, colossus, marauder) while stuff we didn't see so much in HotS was pushed (T mech, Z midgame options, P non deathball play). Just my 2 cents without first hand experience, but I am definately interested in Starcraft 2 again.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
Yeh true, but I went from thinking "this is the dumbest thing ever" to "maybe this would work better if it was included along with the Warp Prism speed upgrade.
This is still the dumbest thing ever except cyclones. Including it with warp prism speed would maybe make a little sense, but I'm pretty adamant this is a bad idea that makes the warp prism something you just can't punish without air units, which is bad design.
Got me thinking. Why not make a top 5 ranking over dumest missteps ever (with extra weights to stuff that was in the game for way too long). This is my personal top 5:
(1) Swarm Hosts --> Should never have gone from beta to release. (2) Warhound --> The fact that this ever was part of internal testings for more than 10 minutes is a big failure. (3) WOL infestors --> 2 years with this awfull ability, and especially during the last year it became very obvious that a change was needed. (4) Cyclone --> I wonder who came up with that 14/15 max range idea? (5) LOTV Swarm Hosts --> Okay I admit this one is not nearly as bad as the ones above, but this new SH looks pretty boring. It's all about avoiding actual unit interactions (even if it doesnt stall out games like its predessor). The reason it's included is because Blizzard could so easily just have scrapped it and replaced it with the Lurker, and noone would have shred a tear.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
Yeh true, but I went from thinking "this is the dumbest thing ever" to "maybe this would work better if it was included along with the Warp Prism speed upgrade.
This is still the dumbest thing ever except cyclones. Including it with warp prism speed would maybe make a little sense, but I'm pretty adamant this is a bad idea that makes the warp prism something you just can't punish without air units, which is bad design.
Got me thinking. Why not make a top 5 ranking over dumest missteps ever (with extra weights to stuff that was in the game for way too long). This is my personal top 5:
(1) Swarm Hosts --> Should never have gone from beta to release. (2) Warhound --> The fact that this ever was part of internal testings for more than 10 minutes is a big failtulre. (3) WOL infestors --> 2 years with this awfull ability, and especially during the last year it became very obvious that a change was needed. (4) Cyclone --> ... (5) LOTV Swarm Hosts --> Okay I admit this one is not nearly as bad as the ones above, but this new SH looks pretty !@#$%^&* dumb. It's all about avoiding actual unit interactions (even if it doesnt stall out games like its predessor). The reason it's included is because Blizzard could so easily just have scrapped it and replaced it with the Lurker, and noone would have shred a tear.
Top 5 for me :
1 and by far : the time they took to deal with broodlord infestor at the end of WoL. 2 : the oracle speed buff. 3 : swarm hosts in general. 4 and 5 tied : warhounds and cyclones.
I personally think another misstep was making P so reliant on sentries, but it's such an old one and I'm pretty sure something good could have been done with the sentry, so no cigar. Everything in my top 5 is just so retarded.
With the immortal nerf (which is a good thing for the game as a whole) It seems like we need a tanky ranged unit that can deal with armored units early on without pigeon holing us into 1 tech path for the midgame.
I keep thinking that the unit you are talking about here is the Immortal? Why are you happy that this has received an overall nerf? Is it because its boring to control? Is it becuase it is produced out of an expensive production facility?
If so, aren't those issues easily adressed?
It has been up to this point. I support the nerf on the premise that hard counters to specific units stifle diversity and are bad for the strategic evolution of the game in the long run. I think the immortal played a large part in keeping mech pretty obscure in TvP, and softening it up might leave room for more reliable mech plays.
Even if we reverted the immortal changes, I'm not sure it would perform against the ravager pushes. Their cost and method of production means that you only really have time to get out 2-3 in preparation for that kind of a push, and before lotv they relied on force fields to keep them safe in their small numbers. By the time hydras were a threat, it was reasonable to have other tech developed to answer them, so it worked. But with the ravager attack, the zerg can force you to burn your force fields much more quickly, and the immortals become a lot more vulnerable. But that's just theorycraft. If someone who has played the game wants to put in their two cents on this that would be awesome, but I think the disruptor is pretty much necessary to deal with them based purely on what I've seen in the last day. Maybe storms or defensive stasis?
Either way, I don't think the adept is the unit we were asking for. Maybe a cheaper, weaker immortal from the gateway is. Maybe we don't need that kind of unit at all, if other options are good enough. A lot of shit is up in the air right now, but I think most people agree the ravager pushes look really strong, and I just don't want it to be one of those things where protoss has to open a specific way every game because the risk of dying to the push or the follow ups is too great.
in SC2, it goes for the route that each spell casters can't spam a lot of spell, but you can build a lot of them so you will have enough available and even then, you have to make sure you have enough actual damage units. LoL is about no spamming in actual engagement, landing spell on right target that make or break your team battle.
I agree, and my point is that I think it's very doable to learn from LOL here. If you generally have less spellcasters (say 2-3 infestors instead of 5). If you can only get of one fungal initially at the start of the battle, and if fungal is balanced around purely being a damage spell and not a slow spell, you are gonna see a similar interaction here. You cast, and the enemy tries to react and doge it.
The major difference when it comes to skillshot interactions between MOBA's and RTS's are that the latter should be purely reaction-based while you can combine reaction with prediction in MOBA's. The projectiles must therefore be slower in an RTS (and balanced around this fact).
It has been up to this point. I support the nerf on the premise that hard counters to specific units stifle diversity and are bad for the strategic evolution of the game in the long run. I think the immortal played a large part in keeping mech pretty obscure in TvP, and softening it up might leave room for more reliable mech plays.
Even if we reverted the immortal changes, I'm not sure it would perform against the ravager pushes.
Look, I think your right here, but the Immortal can imo be changed to fulfill the needed roles pretty well. Imagine the effect of these changes; (a) Make Immortal much less of a hardcounter unit (balanced around no hardened shield). (b) make the Immortal alot more resposnsive/mobile (as the Dragoon is) (c) Make it actually possible to produce them faster to boost the production speed of protoss (reduce cost of Robo to 150/50).
With increased mobility, the Immortal would also have an easier time doding skillshots of Ravagers and could kite a bit against them as well. And w/ the production boost --> You can have more Immortals in the midgame --> Increases cost-efficieny of your army --> You have a better chance of surviving a timing attack.
And this is a big issue. Toss already was very weak in midgame in HOTS, and with new changes to the economy, the lack of army strengt/mobility is further hurting protoss (and then you add Ravager on top of that). But I just don't see reasons to add new units here when you already have one unit to fulfill the needed role (but the unit just needs some stat changes).
the oracle speed buff.
Oh not just the Oracle in general? Such a dumb unit w/ or without speedbuff. It should definitely have replaced the LOTV-SH in my list.
Oh not just the Oracle in general? Such a dumb unit w/ or without speedbuff. It should definitely have replaced the LOTV-SH in my list.
I think the oracle would actually have been tolerable without that buff. That buff broke it forever and sealed P to be unbeatable for half a year against T, alongside the dumb blink maps of the time. One of the biggest and less understandable mistakes they ever made, leading indirectly to the vanishing of templar chargelot in PvT and making it the stalest and most uninteresting non mirror match-up of all time.
Yeah, but outside of this interaction the pick-up range seems broken. Kinda like medivacs with speed boost, where at first everyone will consider it ridiculous and then get used to it and marvel at Parting's awesome immortal harassment. But really, it will be not fun, because you can't stop it unless you build a viking.
Yeh true, but I went from thinking "this is the dumbest thing ever" to "maybe this would work better if it was included along with the Warp Prism speed upgrade.
This is still the dumbest thing ever except cyclones. Including it with warp prism speed would maybe make a little sense, but I'm pretty adamant this is a bad idea that makes the warp prism something you just can't punish without air units, which is bad design.
Got me thinking. Why not make a top 5 ranking over dumest missteps ever (with extra weights to stuff that was in the game for way too long). This is my personal top 5:
(1) Swarm Hosts --> Should never have gone from beta to release. (2) Warhound --> The fact that this ever was part of internal testings for more than 10 minutes is a big failtulre. (3) WOL infestors --> 2 years with this awfull ability, and especially during the last year it became very obvious that a change was needed. (4) Cyclone --> ... (5) LOTV Swarm Hosts --> Okay I admit this one is not nearly as bad as the ones above, but this new SH looks pretty !@#$%^&* dumb. It's all about avoiding actual unit interactions (even if it doesnt stall out games like its predessor). The reason it's included is because Blizzard could so easily just have scrapped it and replaced it with the Lurker, and noone would have shred a tear.
Top 5 for me :
1 and by far : the time they took to deal with broodlord infestor at the end of WoL. 2 : the oracle speed buff. 3 : swarm hosts in general. 4 and 5 tied : warhounds and cyclones.
I personally think another misstep was making P so reliant on sentries, but it's such an old one and I'm pretty sure something good could have been done with the sentry, so no cigar. Everything in my top 5 is just so retarded.
1 the time they took to deal with broodlord infestor at the end of WoL. 2 Widow mine nerf at the end of 2013: took away the only reliable splash damage in tvz without adequate replacement. even blizzard admitted their mistake by now which has to mean something. 3 Widow mine + shield damage: killed the entertaining templar first style in favor of boring collossus turtle. 4 swarmhosts: well, swarmhosts are not always bad; especially in korea we have seen some action packed swarmhost games. but the fact that the unit has the potential to create hour long stalemates is definitely a huge issue. 5 tempests: boring hardcounter unit that renders all massive air units useless once they are on the field. also hardcounters mech.
edit: oracles would be at 6 if i would make a top 6. It's not the biggest issue but a unit that is built exclusively for cheese is certainly bad design.
Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
On April 03 2015 01:43 AngryMag wrote: Cyclone looks a bit over the top right now, it just beats everything. I don't have a problem with the unit per se, but it would be nice if you would have to micromanage the lock on ability, auto lock on seems kinda boring. Combined with the tank drops, a revival of mech strategies seems to be possible.
I've seen a lot of cyclone play and I have to say I love the unit, the only problema right now its the stats, a lot of HP, damage and range, wich makes them easy to use when massed, however they do require a lot of micro, the only problema is that with the range theres not much counter micro, plus the fact that you don't need visión to keep the lock on.
The cyclone is very versatile I think its a fun unit, opening hellion/cyclone allows for a mech player to be out on the map and that is pretty fun, not to mention something mech really needed.
If they make it more of a mobile map control unit, with some harras (but not a harras unit perse) it would be really good.
I think what they should do is:
- Nerf stats: HP, damage, range. (speed is fine I think,) - Lock on is broken if unit is out of sight range: pretty obvious, gives good micro option and allows for maps to be used as a blance tool - Reduce the cost: If they are nerfed heavily I think some 100/100 cost should be fine, cyclones shouldn't be used as a main army unit.
Of course I expect people to say that the cyclone is stupid that it should be removed and that theres is no fixing it (ie: going full b.net fórum), but I like the concept of the unit so far.
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
I must be the only who doesn't find the Disruptor very strong since in a straight-up fight you're basically guaranteed to lose it d:
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
I must be the only who doesn't find the Disruptor very strong since in a straight-up fight you're basically guaranteed to lose it d:
I just read that disruptor doesn't damage burrowed units. Is that true ?
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
I must be the only who doesn't find the Disruptor very strong since in a straight-up fight you're basically guaranteed to lose it d:
I just read that disruptor doesn't damage burrowed units. Is that true ?
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
I must be the only who doesn't find the Disruptor very strong since in a straight-up fight you're basically guaranteed to lose it d:
I just read that disruptor doesn't damage burrowed units. Is that true ?
On April 03 2015 03:37 Lobotomist wrote: Wow i did not understand how disruptors worked, i thought they couldnt move whole invulnerable which was what allowed you to micro against them. Apparently i was mistaken. Seems really strong combined with new warp prism. Gonna have to up my static defense game.
This version is very strong, but a version that couldn't move while invulnerable would just be too easy to counter for 300 gas and totally useless. Finding the happy medium (especially for disruptor vs Z) should be the aim ; the invulnerability + extreme damage output should have some heavier drawbacks IMO, even for such a heavy gas cost.
I must be the only who doesn't find the Disruptor very strong since in a straight-up fight you're basically guaranteed to lose it d:
I just read that disruptor doesn't damage burrowed units. Is that true ?
I have no idea, I never saw it in action against burrowed units. I don't think that it's the case since every single AOE unit in the game deals damage to burrowed units unless I'm mistaken?
Will Terran get another unit ? Cause warehound had been already removed from HOTS, now herc from LOTV, so Terran only get one new unit when protoss and zerg get 2. I saw on boards a contest was organized for creating a new terran unit. When will we have the results ? I really hope one player will create such a cool and balanced unit for terran
my thoughts as a retired gm protoss are: im not a big fan of any of the new units tbh. i haven't used any of them but just watching the streams. ravager feels like it belongs in league of legends, adept is redundant imo, it doesn't do much different than a stalker imo. disruptor is dumb, it kills everything, the new terran unit is pretty ridiculous also.
what if the beta went a different route. you don't necessarily have to add units in order to balance a game. i think the game can benefit a lot from the removal of units and an over simplification of the game. take the sentry out, or remove ff and buff guardian shield and damage output etc, plenty of units in the game aren't necessary, tempest, swarm host.
i'm curious how the game would be if it was an exact replica of bw on a sc2 engine. often times people get too fancy and try to do too much. it took like 12 years for bw to become what it was. do you really need to go through another 12 years to get sc2 to that? if it ain't broke don't fix it.
another analogy would becall of duty 4. classic, arguably one of the best shooters of all time, definitely ahead of its time, it changed the game. now they have so much retarded crap in the game, all these kill streaks, attachments, the game just gets worse pretty much every time they release it.
edit:
the worker count is too high, it just feels forced, maybe try less workers? if you started with 8 workers you wouldn't even have to change the supply of each cc/nexus/overlord would you? and you would have a medium of immediate fast paced action and going through a thought process of what you're to do. scouting seems ridiculously hard with this.
On April 03 2015 04:23 aBstractx wrote: what if the beta went a different route. you don't necessarily have to add units in order to balance a game.
A little after HotS release, a dev said they were already at a very high number of units and would probably not be adding units in LotV, rather balancing the new ones or replacing old units, maybe adding new buildings. At that time, I had high hopes for the multiplayer because that gave me the sense they wanted to solve the issues the game would have instead of adding units for the sake of adding units and creating hypuuuuuuu.
In the end, it seems to me they're genuinely trying to solve the most blatant issues of the game -Blizzard intentions, good as always-, but in a very inelegant way and with so many additions that will create new problems they'll have to add bandaids over bandaids : it'll be such a mess we'll probably never achieve something great. LotV will probably be OK/good, but I don't foresee it being great. Which is sad, because if you look at WoL set of units, you could have tweaked it into something that would have stood the test of time, minus/plus one unit for each race at most.
On April 03 2015 04:23 aBstractx wrote: what if the beta went a different route. you don't necessarily have to add units in order to balance a game.
A little after HotS release, a dev said they were already at a very high number of units and would probably not be adding units in LotV, rather balancing the new ones or replacing old units, maybe adding new buildings. At that time, I had high hopes for the multiplayer because that gave me the sense they wanted to solve the issues the game would have instead of adding units for the sake of adding units and creating hypuuuuuuu.
In the end, it seems to me they're genuinely trying to solve the most blatant issues of the game -Blizzard intentions, good as always-, but in a very inelegant way and with so many additions that will create new problems they'll have to add bandaids over bandaids : it'll be such a mess we'll probably never achieve something great. LotV will probably be OK/good, but I don't foresee it being great. Which is sad, because if you look at WoL set of units, you could have tweaked it into something that would have stood the test of time, minus/plus one unit for each race at most.
basically. at some point does the community move back to vanilla sc2 or hots and just play it as it is? i grew up on starcraft bw but i never actually played bw. i was a bigger fan of vanilla, and i played fastest map possible on that. we had our own community, website, and league that was quite competitive.
the only thing that holds me back from being gm is the fact that i cant get myself to play the game. i'm not entirely sure the reason why, maybe it's just stale to me. I watch it all the time, but when it comes to playing i can't bring myself to it.
I think that right now the Adept's role can be fitted best in:
-scouting: you can send his shade forward in order to make him move more quickly (since the shade is faster than the adept). Also you can use the shade to circumvent units, as long as they don't have enough dps to kill it before it teleports. This might be good in PvP where it's very hard to scout in the early game.
-proxy gateways/early pools : having bonus dmg vs light and lower gas cost than the stalker, it's definitely a good unit against this kind of cheese (which might not exist anymore though).
But it kind of looks like the WoL reaper. Very specific, useless past the first few minutes of the game. Needs a few buffs and it might become more interesting, like the HotS reaper.
Oh and other than that, I think it's pretty easy to stop ravager all ins if you open with a fast oracle and build up to 3-4 of them.
Idk, I think one thing BW economy has that SC2 doesn't is smooth transitioning between expansions - you can stay a lot of time on 1 base and still be efficient. Economies grow slowly in BW and bases saturate gradually and that leaves room for a lot of different economy playstyles. If anything, LotV not only does not remedy the situation, it makes it worse. Heck, you get full saturation minerals on your main in 4 workers from the start of the game now, from then on you're inefficient.
Frantic expansion is a poor solution to the game's economic problems that introduces more infrastructure management (which is not very fun to do or watch) without touching, for example, maxout problems. It has some lasting undesirable consequences such as, for example, SC2 becoming even more unfriendly to beginners. Expanding feels like one of the harder things to do in the macro department and idle worker management is extremely annoying, I definitely wouldn't want my hand forced there even more than now.
I'm sick of watching skyrocketing economies and 200/200 games, does LotV have the tools to get rid of that?
So pretty much everyone agrees that the Ravager is a bit OP right now. And I'm actually kind of liking its fast attack speed, but its DPS against all targets is just way too high right now. Do you guys think it would be better with its attack changed to 8 + 8 armored, or 8 + 8 light?
With everything I've watched I've got the impression that...RIP Protoss xD
I frankly think they should Nerf the immortal more but make it way more masseable.
Although the problem.I see with that is that it could force to go robo every game because it would be necessary vs ravagers I think they should actually then buff the stalker and th adept
On April 03 2015 05:12 Pontius Pirate wrote: So pretty much everyone agrees that the Ravager is a bit OP right now. And I'm actually kind of liking its fast attack speed, but its DPS against all targets is just way too high right now. Do you guys think it would be better with its attack changed to 8 + 8 armored, or 8 + 8 light?
You can always adjust numbers, but here Ravager's design is problematic... It overlaps way too much with Hydras and Roaches, it is literally one giant Hydra-Roach unit. They need to make them different from those units.
On April 03 2015 05:12 Pontius Pirate wrote: So pretty much everyone agrees that the Ravager is a bit OP right now. And I'm actually kind of liking its fast attack speed, but its DPS against all targets is just way too high right now. Do you guys think it would be better with its attack changed to 8 + 8 armored, or 8 + 8 light?
Yes change attack values up and give the skillshot the reverse damage values.
On April 03 2015 05:12 Pontius Pirate wrote: So pretty much everyone agrees that the Ravager is a bit OP right now. And I'm actually kind of liking its fast attack speed, but its DPS against all targets is just way too high right now. Do you guys think it would be better with its attack changed to 8 + 8 armored, or 8 + 8 light?
pretty much all the new units are OP right now. blizzard is doing that intentionally. make all the new units OP so people try them out and you can see what they are adding to the game. Designwise i like most of the new unit except the disruptor and maybe the lurker. Especially cyclones and ravager really feel like something their races needed. I hate the economy changes but at this point i sadly doubt that blizzard will revert them.
You are absolutely dreaming if you think a blizzard expansion would ever reduce the number of units in the game or even leave it identical. RTS expansions have been justified by new multiplayer units since forever. Whichever Blizz person said that "they might not add units in LOTV" in public . . . well I'd like some of what he was smoking. I'd bet someone ripped him a new one for setting that bad expectation with the community. Also if you think the game will reach retail in the currently poor balance state . . . I mean the beta is like 2-3 days old. Chill out.
The community will never move backward en masse to play another variety of the game either. This game's community is driven by the pro scene and aspiring to be like the pro players, who will 100% be playing exclusively LOTV. You might have a splinter community of extreme grognards who decide they can't stand x y or z, but that's it.
Make the best of this time in beta and give Blizz as much constructive feedback as you can . . . wishing for this extreme blue-sky scenario where the devs make your wishlist of massive changes is pointless. If they were going to listen to that type of thing, there's a huge list of stupid bullshit that would have been changed ages ago (Sentries, Swarm Hosts, Warp Gates, high-ground vision, etc.).
On April 03 2015 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see how ravagers were needed at all. A way to deal with forcefields? Yes Ravagers? No
With their size, couldn't ravagers just be massive units with more HP than the roach and roughly same DPS ? They would in the end fulfill the same role but that mortar ability that honestly feels like a spammable and not very tactical MOBA ripoff would be gone.
On April 03 2015 05:44 theqat wrote: You are absolutely dreaming if you think a blizzard expansion would ever reduce the number of units in the game or even leave it identical. RTS expansions have been justified by new multiplayer units since forever. Whichever Blizz person said that "they might not add units in LOTV" in public . . . well I'd like some of what he was smoking. I'd bet someone ripped him a new one for setting that bad expectation with the community.
On April 03 2015 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see how ravagers were needed at all. A way to deal with forcefields? Yes Ravagers? No
-adds firepower to the roach hydra composition which makes it more viable in the later stages of the game -a way to deal with forcefields without making forcefiels completely useless -improves zerg AA -rewards good micro (from both players)
On April 03 2015 05:12 Pontius Pirate wrote: So pretty much everyone agrees that the Ravager is a bit OP right now. And I'm actually kind of liking its fast attack speed, but its DPS against all targets is just way too high right now. Do you guys think it would be better with its attack changed to 8 + 8 armored, or 8 + 8 light?
pretty much all the new units are OP right now. blizzard is doing that intentionally. make all the new units OP so people try them out and you can see what they are adding to the game. Designwise i like most of the new unit except the disruptor and maybe the lurker. Especially cyclones and ravager really feel like something their races needed. I hate the economy changes but at this point i sadly doubt that blizzard will revert them.
I don't think lurkers and adpets are broken though. Cyclones, yeah they are pretty strong and I'm not a big fan of the "infinite kite you can't do shit about it" design, but just from a balancestandpoint I'd rather have blizzard power up Protoss early game against them then nerf them too much at this point. They aren't that dominant in the other matchups beyond early game I think and they are quite expensive early. And Protoss needs something anyways now.
I think disruptor (+prism), ravager and tank drops are the big ones to be watched at the moment. And ultras, they are silly against marines and zerglings and I don't understand why they did the marauder nerf and the ultra buff at once, since those are pure balance changes this is not for design reasons. it's just a big "fuck you bio". Not that I complain about Terran having to transition a bit more, but it feels like blizzard doesn't understand their own engine. Marines going from 3-->1 damage against them, and marauders from 20-->10 (assumption, not sure how the new upgrades work) is just stupid...
On April 03 2015 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see how ravagers were needed at all. A way to deal with forcefields? Yes Ravagers? No
-adds firepower to the roach hydra composition which makes it more viable in the later stages of the game -a way to deal with forcefields without making forcefiels completely useless -improves zerg AA -rewards good micro (from both players)
- Hydras are the dmg dealers in hydra roach - i agreed that the forcefield interaction is reasonable, funnily enough i didn't see a single zerg using the ravager that way - not really though, the spell should never hit a air unit - the spell is spamable atm, the only good micro it promotes is for the enemy (and even then, right now you have to dodge the spell so often it isn't all that rewarding)
The unit is absolutely bs and extremely uninspired as well.
On April 03 2015 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see how ravagers were needed at all. A way to deal with forcefields? Yes Ravagers? No
-adds firepower to the roach hydra composition which makes it more viable in the later stages of the game -a way to deal with forcefields without making forcefiels completely useless -improves zerg AA -rewards good micro (from both players)
- Hydras are the dmg dealers in hydra roach - i agreed that the forcefield interaction is reasonable, funnily enough i didn't see a single zerg using the ravager that way - not really though, the spell should never hit a air unit - the spell is spamable atm, the only good micro it promotes is for the enemy (and even then, right now you have to dodge the spell so often it isn't all that rewarding)
The unit is absolutely bs and extremely uninspired as well.
It needs some rebalancing, of course, but the concept is cool. If you take a fight against ravagers, you need to constantly reposition your units so that you avoid the ravager's ability. It requires much more apm to play against ravagers and fights last longer as well. To be fair I think in open engagements it's better to aim at the army rather than forcefields, but the effect is the same. The protoss player has to pull back his units and therefore he won't be able to attack behind the forcefields.
On April 03 2015 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see how ravagers were needed at all. A way to deal with forcefields? Yes Ravagers? No
-adds firepower to the roach hydra composition which makes it more viable in the later stages of the game -a way to deal with forcefields without making forcefiels completely useless -improves zerg AA -rewards good micro (from both players)
- Hydras are the dmg dealers in hydra roach - i agreed that the forcefield interaction is reasonable, funnily enough i didn't see a single zerg using the ravager that way - not really though, the spell should never hit a air unit - the spell is spamable atm, the only good micro it promotes is for the enemy (and even then, right now you have to dodge the spell so often it isn't all that rewarding)
The unit is absolutely bs and extremely uninspired as well.
It needs some rebalancing, of course, but the concept is cool. If you take a fight against ravagers, you need to constantly reposition your units so that you avoid the ravager's ability. It requires much more apm to play against ravagers and fights last longer as well. To be fair I think in open engagements it's better to aim at the army rather than forcefields, but the effect is the same. The protoss player has to pull back his units and therefore he won't be able to attack behind the forcefields.
I agree: the unit is far from "absoutely bs and uninspired" and is actually one if Blizz' fresher ideas for SC in recent years. Just needs some tweaks is all
I still can't believe how you guys like this unit -.- But hey, if most people like it i guess i have to deal with it some way or another (probably change races, haha)
On April 03 2015 06:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: I still can't believe how you guys like this unit -.- But hey, if most people like it i guess i have to deal with it some way or another (probably change races, haha)
If you change race you still have to play against it all the time.
On April 03 2015 06:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: I still can't believe how you guys like this unit -.- But hey, if most people like it i guess i have to deal with it some way or another (probably change races, haha)
If you change race you still have to play against it all the time.
Sure, but that's more fun (if it is balanced) than using it tbh The other option would be to not use the ravager at all, but i guess that might be hard to do (at least in zvz)
So out of curiousity, what makes you not want to play with this one that you are ok with when playing with roaches and hydras? I see your point of it being uninspired, because right now it just looks like a hyperroach with corrosive bile on top of it. But if you are ok with playing roach or roach/hydra, the only thing against it I can think of is the bile-spam. Which I hope blizzard will deal with somehow. Either directly (technically limiting the spell more) or indirectly (strategically limiting the ravager more). And since the unit looks too strong, I think there is a high chance this will happen.
Yeah the bile-spam mostly. If that won't change it would really make me sad, haha. If they change that it at least wouldn't annoy me anymore^^ Though i still think it would be an extremely unoriginal morph for a zerg unit. I like the idea to let roaches morph into something, but THAT is really the best blizzard could think of? Meh
On April 03 2015 07:15 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yeah the bile-spam mostly. If that won't change it would really make me sad, haha. If they change that it at least wouldn't annoy me anymore^^ Though i still think it would be an extremely unoriginal morph for a zerg unit. I like the idea to let roaches morph into something, but THAT is really the best blizzard could think of? Meh
To be honest it's the spam aspect that I don't like too. If the mortar dealt bigger damage but with long cooldown and no standard attack for the ravager that could be interesting, making it more of a tactical bomber than an easy complement to hydraroach that just spams fireballs to boot.
On April 03 2015 07:15 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yeah the bile-spam mostly. If that won't change it would really make me sad, haha. If they change that it at least wouldn't annoy me anymore^^ Though i still think it would be an extremely unoriginal morph for a zerg unit. I like the idea to let roaches morph into something, but THAT is really the best blizzard could think of? Meh
To be honest it's the spam aspect that I don't like too. If the mortar dealt bigger damage but with long cooldown and no standard attack for the ravager that could be interesting, making it more of a tactical bomber than an easy complement to hydraroach that just spams fireballs to boot.
I really don't get the design of the ravager. I thought the corrosive bile was supposed to be its main feature, not have base stats that make it more cost effective than hydralisks versus ground units as well.
On April 03 2015 08:22 andrewlt wrote: I really don't get the design of the ravager. I thought the corrosive bile was supposed to be its main feature, not have base stats that make it more cost effective than hydralisks versus ground units as well.
As most of their Blizzcon presentation videos, the one on the ravager was very poorly done to showcase what the unit should be able to do.
On April 03 2015 06:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: I still can't believe how you guys like this unit -.- But hey, if most people like it i guess i have to deal with it some way or another (probably change races, haha)
I can't believe you don't like it. You so weird :D
On April 03 2015 06:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: I still can't believe how you guys like this unit -.- But hey, if most people like it i guess i have to deal with it some way or another (probably change races, haha)
I can't believe you don't like it. You so weird :D
A spell to counter force field would be adequate enough. They don't need to overkill force fields with the Ravager. In a string of FFs you'd normally only need to remove one or two for your units to slip througs. Why not let the Viper abduct a few FFs and have a unit that doesn't have such a bizarre potential. I can already see the great raining wall of Ravager defense. It's obvious that with Ravagers, we will see more micro, more dogding, more stalling, its effect is kinda lika the old SH. Yeah why not make all units be able to shoot stuff on thin air, more range, 50% more damage if it hits something, it will be super fun micro battle all day. Endless marine, tank, stalker micro, a new sort of RTS is born. Guys, remember the Gunblade from Squall? Combine it with the Ultralisk, pressing B right when it hits a marine => 50% more damage. Don't miss the timing on this awesome micro.
On April 03 2015 11:39 BisuDagger wrote: New patch just out, nothing significant.
Where are notes?
since they mention performance and breaking previous replays i'm just even more curious if they're tweaking the tick rate of the engine. That -is- significant for both performance and unit responsiveness :D
So, what is the counter to the disruptor when its invulnerable... you run away, you're too far away to kill it, then it retreats and the process repeats itself until someone messes up?
On April 03 2015 14:29 NKexquisite wrote: So, what is the counter to the disruptor when its invulnerable... you run away, you're too far away to kill it, then it retreats and the process repeats itself until someone messes up?
the unit is designed to make fights last longer by forcing both sides to micro the disruptor and against it, so yes.
On April 03 2015 14:29 NKexquisite wrote: So, what is the counter to the disruptor when its invulnerable... you run away, you're too far away to kill it, then it retreats and the process repeats itself until someone messes up?
It's pretty slow after it pops though, you should usually have a very good chance of picking it off, unless the Protoss player is extra smart and is using it with a Warp Prism properly
And my first impression is... Dear lord, this game is way too hard to play! But ohhh man I haven't felt such creative freedom with strategies. It really is a whole new game! I really do want to play archon mode though! Still waiting on my friend to get on for that.
Whatever the 12 Worker Start is such a boost to the game. I guess it will be SO hard to play, games i watched where in almost "super lategame" after 12 minutes with upgraded ultras after muta phase.
This is from "Sitting in the plane taking off to your first parachute jump" to "being fired from a cannon with zero warning".
This game will absolutely not draw new players in. But it will be hellufafun for current fans.
On April 03 2015 18:12 plgElwood wrote: Naniwa got so salty xD.
Whatever the 12 Worker Start is such a boost to the game. I guess it will be SO hard to play, games i watched where in almost "super lategame" after 12 minutes with upgraded ultras after muta phase.
This is from "Sitting in the plane taking off to your first parachute jump" to "being fired from a cannon with zero warning".
This game will absolutely not draw new players in. But it will be hellufafun for current fans.
12min real time (LotV) = 17min HotS, WoL. So not really you have "super lategame" so early while you start with 12workers. Its much slower in LotV.
Naniwa is the best zerg I have seen so far. Extremely high serenity overall. There was one game where he delayed nonstop opponent's 3rd base with lings while producing mass mutas. 185/200 supply at 9:07 real time with mass mutas.
This game might not friendly to new players because is too action-paced compared HotS, but this is WHAT we all need. DotA, LoL and many other eSports games aren't friendly for beginners too.
On April 03 2015 18:12 plgElwood wrote: Naniwa got so salty xD.
Whatever the 12 Worker Start is such a boost to the game. I guess it will be SO hard to play, games i watched where in almost "super lategame" after 12 minutes with upgraded ultras after muta phase.
This is from "Sitting in the plane taking off to your first parachute jump" to "being fired from a cannon with zero warning".
This game will absolutely not draw new players in. But it will be hellufafun for current fans.
12min real time (LotV) = 17min HotS, WoL. So not really you have "super lategame" so early while you start with 12workers. Its much slower in LotV.
Naniwa is the best zerg I have seen so far. Extremely high serenity overall. There was one game where he delayed nonstop opponent's 3rd base with lings while producing mass mutas. 185/200 supply at 9:07 real time with mass mutas.
This game might not friendly to new players because is too action-paced compared HotS, but this is WHAT we all need. DotA, LoL and many other eSports games aren't friendly for beginners too.
My guess is they just fixed some performance issues (Ravagers were causing massive fps drops in big fights for example), and they fixed the maps (the non Blizzard maps actually didn't have the 1500/750 minerals, it was all 1500).
Based on what I have seen until now its special ability feels a bit odd and unnatural to use. I think it would be better if the Adept itself turns into a shade form, which provides it with faster movement speed, invulnerability, the inability causing damage and the power to slip through other units. In that way the Adept would have a much more natural hit-and-run feeling in its use. This would also avoid the similarity to the stalkers blink. Right now, it just feels like a poor copy of that. You may agree with me or not
Beside that special ability it would be nice if the stats of the Adept could be tweaked into a form in which it would be able to trade kind of okayish against mass hydra and mass marine compositions, buying you enough time to transition into colossus/disruptor/HT.
On the aesthetic side, I really do not like the way it walks. It should use a psionic levitation the same way High Templar use (without that shadow thing). Also that weapon feels abit too clunky and does not fit the protoss style. It should be more like a slim palm-integrated weapon, or a weapon attached to the forearm like the zealots do.
On April 03 2015 20:32 Aenur wrote: My thoughts about the Adept so far
Based on what I have seen until now its special ability feels a bit odd and unnatural to use. I think it would be better if the Adept itself turns into a shade form, which provides it with faster movement speed, invulnerability, the inability causing damage and the power to slip through other units. In that way the Adept would have a much more natural hit-and-run feeling in its use. This would also avoid the similarity to the stalkers blink. Right now, it just feels like a poor copy of that. You may agree with me or not
Beside that special ability it would be nice if the stats of the Adept could be tweaked into a form in which it would be able to trade kind of okayish against mass hydra and mass marine compositions, buying you enough time to transition into colossus/disruptor/HT.
On the aesthetic side, I really do not like the way it walks. It should use a psionic levitation the same way High Templar use (without that shadow thing). Also that weapon feels abit too clunky and does not fit the protoss style. It should be more like a slim palm-integrated weapon, or a weapon attached to the forearm like the zealots do.
I don't see the Adept as a protoss core unit (it just can never really fill that role I believe), and it's not what protoss really needed. Imo the Immortal should receive a larger role as that is a non gimmicky tier 2-unit that comes from a standard production facility. Meanwhile more "gimmicky" units like the Adept should be designed around very high mobility that allows for outplay but relatively weak core stats.
Trying to make the Adept a middle-of-the road unit is just gonna end up not making it particularly good and fun at either thing, and thus I want to this a unit that has more viability than the Reaper but still maintains a really high level of mobility.
My Adept idea Once you are teleported to the shadow then a new shadow takes your place (as how Zed works in LOL), and you can constantly move the shadow around.
The duration time for teleport should be lowered to roughly 8 seconds in order to give it more mobility. There is no cooldown for when you can start the "teleport"-proces. In order to promote more counterplay the shadow should be killable, but it should be quite tanky (250-400 HP). The Adept it self should be very vulnerable (low HP/shield). Decent damage and 3-4 range. Movement speed = 2.25
At twilight council an upgrade is added that further boosts the shadows tankiness and allows it to pass through buildings (its important that it cant do this early game, but late game its needed imo). Implications These changes will reward players who micro both the shadow and the Adept all the time. But the protoss player must think twice about where he sends his shadow as it can be killed. The Adept isn't a unit that deals lots of damage at one moment and it's quite forgiveable to play against it due to its slow movement speed and low range. So in that regard it's a different harass-threat than the one of Storm drops/Disruptors/Oracles. However, it's a constant threat and a skilled protoss player will deal damage all the time with them (and everywhere).
Due to its upgrade and the effect of the new economy, it also doesn't fall off late game. Yes its not good during larger engagements but its very efficient at attacking the weak links of the enemy and escaping shortly after.
On April 03 2015 20:32 Aenur wrote: My thoughts about the Adept so far
Based on what I have seen until now its special ability feels a bit odd and unnatural to use. I think it would be better if the Adept itself turns into a shade form, which provides it with faster movement speed, invulnerability, the inability causing damage and the power to slip through other units. In that way the Adept would have a much more natural hit-and-run feeling in its use. This would also avoid the similarity to the stalkers blink. Right now, it just feels like a poor copy of that. You may agree with me or not
Beside that special ability it would be nice if the stats of the Adept could be tweaked into a form in which it would be able to trade kind of okayish against mass hydra and mass marine compositions, buying you enough time to transition into colossus/disruptor/HT.
On the aesthetic side, I really do not like the way it walks. It should use a psionic levitation the same way High Templar use (without that shadow thing). Also that weapon feels abit too clunky and does not fit the protoss style. It should be more like a slim palm-integrated weapon, or a weapon attached to the forearm like the zealots do.
I don't see the Adept as a protoss core unit (it just can never really fill that role I believe), and it's not what protoss really needed. Imo the Immortal should receive a larger role as that is a non gimmicky tier 2-unit that comes from a standard production facility. Meanwhile more "gimmicky" units like the Adept should be designed around very high mobility that allows for outplay but relatively weak core stats.
Trying to make the Adept a middle-of-the road unit is just gonna end up not making it particularly good and fun at either thing, and thus I want to this a unit that has more viability than the Reaper but still maintains a really high level of mobility.
My Adept idea Once you are teleported to the shadow then a new shadow takes your place (as how Zed works in LOL), and you can constantly move the shadow around.
The duration time for teleport should be lowered to roughly 8 seconds in order to give it more mobility. There is no cooldown for when you can start the "teleport"-proces. In order to promote more counterplay the shadow should be killable, but it should be quite tanky (250-400 HP). The Adept it self should be very vulnerable (low HP/shield). Decent damage and 3-4 range. Movement speed = 2.25
At twilight council an upgrade is added that further boosts the shadows tankiness and allows it to pass through buildings (its important that it cant do this early game, but late game its needed imo). Implications These changes will reward players who micro both the shadow and the Adept all the time. But the protoss player must think twice about where he sends his shadow as it can be killed. The Adept isn't a unit that deals lots of damage at one moment and it's quite forgiveable to play against it due to its slow movement speed and low range. So in that regard it's a different harass-threat than the one of Storm drops/Disruptors/Oracles. However, it's a constant threat and a skilled protoss player will deal damage all the time with them (and everywhere).
Due to its upgrade and the effect of the new economy, it also doesn't fall off late game. Yes its not good during larger engagements but its very efficient at attacking the weak links of the enemy and escaping shortly after.
What would happen if the shadow would die? Would the adept simply spawn a new shadow? I'm not sure I like this, since I think graphically constantly spawning shadows with hit points would give awkward health bar clutter. Furthermore with corporal shadows the pathing expectations become different, and I don't know if it would make sense to have them move through everything.
Out of curiosity, how do shadow visual effects work for the adept? I think it would be funny if when you spawn the shade it sort of emerges from the shadow, leaving the adept without one, and with the shade having no shadow of its own.
I haven't actually seen adepts in action (since HuK refused to build them). I wonder about the reaper / blink stalker effect, does the unit have some early game rush potential that by necessity leaves it in a weaker state? I thought that the main issue with the aforementioned units was the cliff-scaling potential, and that adepts would be able to mimic this by having the shades pass through (at least) zealots. (I actually don't know, but do the shades have pathing interactions with other units?)
I don't see the Adept as a protoss core unit (it just can never really fill that role I believe), and it's not what protoss really needed. Imo the Immortal should receive a larger role as that is a non gimmicky tier 2-unit that comes from a standard production facility. Meanwhile more "gimmicky" units like the Adept should be designed around very high mobility that allows for outplay but relatively weak core stats.
I think the opposite and they should really make the Adept that core unit. There's plenty of ways to make use of an anti-light splash damage unit from the gateway. If it was tuned decently it would be extremely powerful
What would happen if the shadow would die? Would the adept simply spawn a new shadow?
Then you wouldn't teleport to the shadow. But you could launch a new shadow from the Adept.
I'm not sure I like this, since I think graphically constantly spawning shadows with hit points would give awkward health bar clutter.
Just to clarify, you can only spawn one shadow at a time. There are no constantly spawning shadows. If you cast a new shadow, the old shadow is replaced.
It's only once the protoss player activates it a shadow is created, and once you have been teleported, a shadow is created from your prior location (as with Zed in League of Legends - but unlike with Zed you can teleport back and fourth all the time between Shadows - at a fixed CD ofc).
The more I see the adept in play, the more I think the shade ability isn't needed. It could be balanced in a number of ways, as a core anti light gateway unit or as an early game harasser quite similar to WoL reaper, but I'm pretty sure the shade ability doesn't bring much to the adept and feels just like another teleport.
I saw a suggestion on reddit that I like w/r/t the adept, it was to remove blink from the stalker and buff stalker stats, and replace the adept ability with blink.
On April 04 2015 01:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: The more I see the adept in play, the more I think the shade ability isn't needed. It could be balanced in a number of ways, as a core anti light gateway unit or as an early game harasser quite similar to WoL reaper, but I'm pretty sure the shade ability doesn't bring much to the adept and feels just like another teleport.
It doesn't bring anything to the table atm. as the ability is way too weak. In my opinion you either go all-in on the shadow-thing and give it weak core stats with insane shadow-micro potential or you make this a core unit (with no gimmick). The current in-between solution just doesn't work.
The reason I prefer the "buff the shadow"-approach instead of the core-unit solution is twofold;
(1) As long as there is counterplay, mobility units are awesome. (2) I don't like making warpgate units too strong in terms of core stats due to timing attacks/all-ins being buffed at the same time. I much rather promote the Immortal as a core-unit.
The reason I prefer the "buff the shadow"-approach instead of the core-unit solution is twofold;
(1) As long as there is counterplay, mobility units are awesome.
We have stalkers for that
(2) I don't like making warpgate units too strong in terms of core stats due to timing attacks/all-ins being buffed at the same time. I much rather promote the Immortal as a core-unit.
Warpgate was nerfed for use anywhere near combat and core units (immortal, colossus) neutered
(2) I don't like making warpgate units too strong in terms of core stats due to timing attacks/all-ins being buffed at the same time. I much rather promote the Immortal as a core-unit.
Warpgate was nerfed for use anywhere near combat and core units (immortal, colossus) neutered
Well, in terms of balancing protoss it's pretty easy for Blizzard to do something like reduce cost/build time of robotics facility and to add similar buffs to the immortal. One can assume they haven't done anything of the sort since they weren't focused on balance so far, but that given the current state of protoss this might be done in the near future and Blizzard is just gathering data to decide on the precise buff.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?). I think one reason adepts might be considered weak is that there is little point to them if the zerg can have 10 zerglings and two bases out by that time (e.g.). Alternatively, the adept could have psionic transfer improved to make it especially fearsome in the early game (there is a potential for a lack of counterplay here though), just to give protoss the tools to make it to a more reliable immortal-based composition.
And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker. You want it to be something that is better vs light units... Okay, that still brings it in competiion with Stalkers as Stalkers can kite slowlings/unstimmed Marines and Sentries (FF and Guardian Shield).
Late game it's in competition with all of the toss splash units. Then you could argue that maybe there is a place for the Adept as strong anti-light in the midgame vs terran only. But what type of micro does that reward actually? Adept is gonna a-move the bio army? Or what specific interaction are you imagining here?
When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing that must be answered is how we can add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game?
Once that has been answered, you can try to create unit-roles intended to promote the micro interactions. That is indeed likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well.
Marauder Increased the number of attacks from 1 to 2, halved damage and bonus damage.
Does this mean that the marauder will become even stronger now with an attack upgrade lead? Meaning that it will get +2 damage and +2 bonus damage per upgrade, instead of +1/+1?
Marauder Increased the number of attacks from 1 to 2, halved damage and bonus damage.
Does this mean that the marauder will become even stronger now with an attack upgrade lead? Meaning that it will get +2 damage and +2 bonus damage per upgrade, instead of +1/+1?
This is very fear inducing.
They do the same amount of damage, split into two attacks. So they're actually weaker against armor.
Marauder Increased the number of attacks from 1 to 2, halved damage and bonus damage.
Does this mean that the marauder will become even stronger now with an attack upgrade lead? Meaning that it will get +2 damage and +2 bonus damage per upgrade, instead of +1/+1?
This is very fear inducing.
They do the same amount of damage, split into two attacks. So they're actually weaker against armor.
But that also means they receive double the attack damage from attack upgrades, since it applies twice.
HotS a 0/0 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: (10+10)-1 = 19 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: (13+13)-1 = 25 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 3/3 roach: (13+13)-4 = 22 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 3/8 ultralisk: (13+13)-8 = 18 damage
LotV a 0/0 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: ((5+5)-1)*2 = 18 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: ((8+8)-1)*2 = 30 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: ((8+8)-4)*2 = 24 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 3/8 ultralisk: ((8+8)-8)*2 = 16 damage
So as you can see, doubling the attacks for half the damage, also doubles the upgrade potency.
And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker.
When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing you have to ask your self is: How can we add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game?
Once you discovered that, you try to create roles based on that, and that is likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well.
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. They get a quick boost in the mid-game with your proposed immortal change, or a bit later in the game with the new disruptor and warp prism without taking your example change into account. But they're still confined to more or less passively defending early game. I don't know if that's necessary with the new warp gate mechanics.
Note that in HotS protoss has energy for chronoboost by the 12 worker mark, which is not there in LotV. I think giving bonus energy at the start at least establishes parity with HotS and even more early game protoss buffs should be at least experimented with now that warp gate is so much weaker.
(pending the actual nexus starting energy in LotV, let me check a stream :p indeed it is 0 )
Marauder Increased the number of attacks from 1 to 2, halved damage and bonus damage.
Does this mean that the marauder will become even stronger now with an attack upgrade lead? Meaning that it will get +2 damage and +2 bonus damage per upgrade, instead of +1/+1?
This is very fear inducing.
They do the same amount of damage, split into two attacks. So they're actually weaker against armor.
But that also means they receive double the attack damage from attack upgrades, since it applies twice.
HotS a 0/0 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: (10+10)-1 = 19 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: (13+13)-1 = 25 damage
LotV a 0/0 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: ((5+5)-1)*2 = 18 damage a 3/3 marauder vs a 0/0 roach: ((8+8)-1)*2 = 30 damage
So as you can see, doubling the attacks for half the damage, also doubles the upgrade potency.
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades.
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades.
Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3.
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades.
Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3.
I don't have the beta, but I'm assuming the new marauder has 2 shots of 10 damage each against armor. Do upgrades increase both of these shots by two damage each?
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades.
Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3.
I don't have the beta, but I'm assuming the new marauder has 2 shots of 10 damage each against armor. Do upgrades increase both of these shots by two damage each?
No. upgrades will add +1 to his normal shot and +1 to his armored shot. But then that is multiplied by 2, since he attacks twice - get it? So +1+1 = 2*2 = 4 damage per attack upgrade. But it also means armor counts twice, so -2 damage per armor upgrade, +4 per attack upgrade.
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point.
Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on. By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc).
Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly.
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades.
Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3.
I don't have the beta, but I'm assuming the new marauder has 2 shots of 10 damage each against armor. Do upgrades increase both of these shots by two damage each?
No. upgrades will add +1 to his normal shot and +1 to his armored shot. But then that is multiplied by 2, since he attacks twice - get it? So +1+1 = 2*2 = 4 damage per attack upgrade. But it also means armor counts twice, so -2 damage per armor upgrade, +4 per attack upgrade.
OK, in that case you're right. I know full well what you meant, by the way >.>
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point.
Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on. By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc).
Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy, and while terran and zerg have later mules / queens, I think that for zerg especially this matters less.
Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence. Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV. Furthermore, the potential of warp gate is not yet spent by the time you have access to immortals, so I think that giving cheaper access to the robotics facility is quite similar to simply buffing early game economy. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of all-in potential. Furthermore, you can't make adepts work for the early game (because it will be yet another unit that has to defend passively) if protoss does not have the economy to make sufficiently many of them to be aggressive.
(I suppose I should hold off judgment on adepts until I actually see them in action :p )
I think generally parity is a good thing, to have all races equally strong in all major phases of the game (during a phase you can have various timings of course).
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point.
Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on. By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc).
Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy, and while terran and zerg have later mules / queens, I think that for zerg especially this matters less.
Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence. Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV. Furthermore, the potential of warp gate is not yet spent by the time you have access to immortals, so I think that giving cheaper access to the robotics facility is quite similar to simply buffing early game economy. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of all-in potential. Furthermore, you can't make adepts work for the early game (because it will be yet another unit that has to defend passively) if protoss does not have the economy to make sufficiently many of them to be aggressive.
(I suppose I should hold off judgment on adepts until I actually see them in action :p )
I think generally parity is a good thing, to have all races equally strong in all major phases of the game (during a phase you can have various timings of course).
I don't think the 57 energy is very relevent because this energy we used on probes probably over 95% of the games
fwiw the only way I managed to make adepts work is either quick 2 gate and cheesing with them, or 2 base all in with 8 gates and mass adepts/sentry which works exclusively if zerg has no roaches at all (hydras/lings/swarmhosts)
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
I think what he's getting at is that by the time your 12th worker finishes you have generally just spent your second chronoboost, and that's the point where protoss begins to gain a worker advantage on their opponent. Since OC and Queens don't come into play until later, he's arguing that starting at 12 workers disadvantages protoss in non mirrors without effecting zerg or terran's macro mechanics in any way.
Need to see numbers to know if it really matters, though, and I suck at math.
Edit: But the theory is, protoss would need to start with an extra worker for all things to be truly equal at that point. I'm not 100% sure about is how many drones zerg can/should have at that point assuming they haven't built a pool or extractor before 12 supply. Against terran it is, at least on paper, a disadvantage.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
I think what he's getting at is that by the time your 12th worker finishes you have generally just spent your second chronoboost, and that's the point where protoss begins to gain a worker advantage on their opponent. Since OC and Queens don't come into play until later, he's arguing that starting at 12 workers disadvantages protoss in non mirrors without effecting zerg or terran's macro mechanics in any way.
Need to see numbers to know if it really matters, though, and I suck at math.
Oh I didn't even think about that, that's right since the other races starts with same amount of workers lol, puts us behind compared to before
Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV.
Those were nerfs to protoss both offensively and defensively. I think protoss was already problematic in HOTS, and I want to make it easier for protoss to go out on the map and secure expos, do light pressure/harass, while making it harder for them to do all ins.
The only way to do that is to force them to rely more on the core roots classic RTS principals: You pay for a unit, you wait XX seconds, and then your unit comes out of your base.
Warp-in and teleport stuff can be awesome, but not if it is used as a tool to kill your enemy imo. Warpgate units should primiarily be support or harass-units or have some type of AA-focussed role. But they shouldn't be very good at winning engagements by them selves.
This is why I don't agree with the "buff warpgate army"-solution or anything that directly or indirectly contributes to stronger warpgate compositions.
Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence.
But you don't accomplish this by outright buffing protoss (that just brings them back to how they were in HOTS). Imo you accomplish this by buffing their core army efficiency, while nerfing the all-in potential of the core army.
To accomplish that, the percentage of the army that comes from Robo facilities (classical RTS production) must be increased. Immortals therefore must get a role that closer matches that of the Dragoon from BW. With a 150/50 Robo facility, you can afford 2-3 Robo's in the midgame and hence you rely less on warpgates.
That frees up the role of warpgate units in the midgame, so they are less about winning engagements by them selves, but more about supporting the Immortal (Stalker vs AA, Sentry spellcaster, zealot meatshield, HT damagedealer - broadly speaking) and ofc harassing.
FYI, I am not satifised with just changing the cost of the Robo. Imo people won't like having to build more Immortals as the unit isn't very interesting. Therefore it absolutely needs to be made more mobile and responsive in order to reward more micro.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
well it is kinda significant but still a minor issue, right now all those nerfs protoss makes it almost unwinnable, at least definitely impossible to go 50/50 with someone of a similar skill level, I'm still really unsure of what blizzard was thinking about when they did that, I felt they should have buffed all 3 races and then adjust, now it's just confusing lol
And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker.
When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing you have to ask your self is: How can we add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game?
Once you discovered that, you try to create roles based on that, and that is likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well.
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. They get a quick boost in the mid-game with your proposed immortal change, or a bit later in the game with the new disruptor and warp prism without taking your example change into account. But they're still confined to more or less passively defending early game. I don't know if that's necessary with the new warp gate mechanics.
Note that in HotS protoss has energy for chronoboost by the 12 worker mark, which is not there in LotV. I think giving bonus energy at the start at least establishes parity with HotS and even more early game protoss buffs should be at least experimented with now that warp gate is so much weaker.
(pending the actual nexus starting energy in LotV, let me check a stream :p indeed it is 0 )
Honestly, I wish they would just go ahead and make Warp Gate cooldown twice (or 33% more, or whatever) of what it currently is and remove the damage units take on warp in again. Move Warp Gate to Twilight Council, and move the Adept cleave thingy to Cyber Core. This can make Adepts even more useful early game, really solidifies Warp Gate as more of a mid game offensive option, AND provides a reason to keep using Gateways. I've never really been a fan of the idea that you just automatically have to get Warp Gate ASAP and never use Gateways again, tbh. I much prefer the idea of using Warp Gates for a quick reinforcement one, maybe two times during an attack, while leaving Gateways as the "macro" option.
edit: Maybe if you do it this way, and you put the macro emphasis on the Gateway, you can shave a few seconds off build times of Gateway units? Might make some early proxy zealot/stalker play a little too strong, but honestly I think those early cheeses might be dead for LotV
The impact of starting workers really does feel somewhat significant, but without doing some analysis, math and testing we can't nail it down. Luckily its something we are looking into so eventually we will have some hard numbers to look at.
To others in the beta - how do the 750 mineral patch minerals feel? I've got mixed feelings myself but don't really know how I feel since only three maps currently have the correct LotV mineral patches implemented.
Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV.
Those were nerfs to protoss both offensively and defensively. I think protoss was already problematic in HOTS, and I want to make it easier for protoss to go out on the map and secure expos, do light pressure/harass, while making it harder for them to do all ins.
It might be difficult to qualify several of those statements. I don't know if the introduction of the ravager is more significant for offensive or defensive use of the sentry. A similar question exists for the new parameters of warp-in. Time warp is used virtually exclusively offensively, mothership core energy being reserved for photon overcharge for defensive applications. So the potential is at least there for protoss to be much weaker offensively than defensively compared to before. My personal judgment is that this is, in fact, the case, but it would be nice to hear from pro-gamers.
im not even sure how protoss is supposed to deal with ravagers/roach, besides going skytoss, holding just a solid mass roach build was already not that easy, you had to forcefield properly, without forcefield it's just a massacre lol
On April 04 2015 03:38 ZeromuS wrote: The impact of starting workers really does feel somewhat significant, but without doing some analysis, math and testing we can't nail it down. Luckily its something we are looking into so eventually we will have some hard numbers to look at.
To others in the beta - how do the 750 mineral patch minerals feel? I've got mixed feelings myself but don't really know how I feel since only three maps currently have the correct LotV mineral patches implemented.
I like the idea of this faster economy + need to expand quicker, but...I don't know. I'd almost rather they just cut all mineral patches by an even amount. Half your patches running out faster just feels really odd. Then again, I guess part of the reason they did this is because running out of half your mineral patches faster also reduces mining efficiency of each base after a while.
And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker.
When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing you have to ask your self is: How can we add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game?
Once you discovered that, you try to create roles based on that, and that is likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well.
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. They get a quick boost in the mid-game with your proposed immortal change, or a bit later in the game with the new disruptor and warp prism without taking your example change into account. But they're still confined to more or less passively defending early game. I don't know if that's necessary with the new warp gate mechanics.
Note that in HotS protoss has energy for chronoboost by the 12 worker mark, which is not there in LotV. I think giving bonus energy at the start at least establishes parity with HotS and even more early game protoss buffs should be at least experimented with now that warp gate is so much weaker.
(pending the actual nexus starting energy in LotV, let me check a stream :p indeed it is 0 )
Honestly, I wish they would just go ahead and make Warp Gate cooldown twice (or 33% more, or whatever) of what it currently is and remove the damage units take on warp in again. Move Warp Gate to Twilight Council, and move the Adept cleave thingy to Cyber Core. This can make Adepts even more useful early game, really solidifies Warp Gate as more of a mid game offensive option, AND provides a reason to keep using Gateways. I've never really been a fan of the idea that you just automatically have to get Warp Gate ASAP and never use Gateways again, tbh. I much prefer the idea of using Warp Gates for a quick reinforcement one, maybe two times during an attack, while leaving Gateways as the "macro" option.
edit: Maybe if you do it this way, and you put the macro emphasis on the Gateway, you can shave a few seconds off build times of Gateway units? Might make some early proxy zealot/stalker play a little too strong, but honestly I think those early cheeses might be dead for LotV
I wouldn't mind to have Warpgate at later tech and maybe ading some extra secons for building units, but you have to give Protoss a solid early game.
The only real problem, the curse of Potoss early game, is Chronoboost. Gateway is all balanced around the chronoboost mechanic being available from the start, making gateway-based play unplayable due to long build times for balance reasons. That was caused by the removal of the obelisk back in woL alpha. (The Obleisk contained Chronoboost + a mining boost ability, but was removed since it has virtually no numerical limitation other than cost). Protoss has very poor early game design, being balanced around the Nexus cannon and gaining echonomical advantage, which ends being a 2base turtle mostly. However, as the game progresses, the production disadvantage is quite evident, so a big production buff is introduced via Warpgate. This means that Warpgate has be available quite early in the game for obvious needs.
That's why in midgame our actual Warpgate is quite balanced in terms of production but at the same time is very very strong in terms of utility by the time it hits the field.
The solution is quite simple, is making and rebalancing the ability to perform in the way it should be: only in terms of utility only. Protoss needs Gateway production to be able to compete with larvas and reactors. S some fair way to get acccess to their macro mechsnic as the othr races do. 150mins, mid build time, instead of having the macrobooster from the start. Either as terrans do via base upgrade, or by reintroducing the Obelisk or something similar somehow. It's as simple as delaying Chronoboost in the same way that other macroboosters are. With that, you can shorten Gateway build times. Once the production is stable, we could focus on balancing the Warpgate mechanic in terms of utility, as it wouldn't have a production component.
Once we fix early game, we should focus on a mid-lategame Warpgate. I think that it is not bad to have Warpgtes as permanent structural upgrade if its delayed enough in terms of cost and requirements. Terrans have reactors and zergs have injects and build few buildinds, and that is mostly permanent through the game. That, +some production nerf, would be more than enough.
You would not focus heavily on getting Warpgate if it costs 200/200 at twilight level because you have better things to get, otherwise you are delaying heavily your production and tech to gain only in terms of utility for Gateway units. Delaying things is a good way to balance utility upgrades, since you have to split your income between structural tech, upgrades and army, and you are against the clock: this is an RTS.
Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV.
Those were nerfs to protoss both offensively and defensively. I think protoss was already problematic in HOTS, and I want to make it easier for protoss to go out on the map and secure expos, do light pressure/harass, while making it harder for them to do all ins.
It might be difficult to qualify several of those statements. I don't know if the introduction of the ravager is more significant for offensive or defensive use of the sentry. A similar question exists for the new parameters of warp-in. Time warp is used virtually exclusively offensively, mothership core energy being reserved for photon overcharge for defensive applications. So the potential is at least there for protoss to be much weaker offensively than defensively compared to before. My personal judgment is that this is, in fact, the case, but it would be nice to hear from pro-gamers.
Well I think we have seen that the Ravager is pretty good along with timing attacks. Moreover, it's skillshot also makes it a bit hard to attack into as you can fire it off and move back without taking damage against an enemy army attacking into you. So the Ravager is a unit that works fine offensively and defensively.
This seems to be the most controversial unit, due to being too fast while invincible to split, and not having any options to counter it other than splitting. I think only one of those should be addressed for now, and Blizzard should either:
a) Lower the speed while invincible. Baneling vs Marine is fun to watch because how fast the Baneling is depends on whether it's on creep, leading to positional play involving spreading/destroying creep. There is no creep equivalent for protoss, so the easiest nerf is to make it easier to split by lowering speed or increasing charge-up time.
b) Remove invincibility entirely. Replace by giving it 10 armor while charging up to explode. This makes any sort of spell a potential counter to disruptors while keeping the disruptor strong against basic units. This also means that mech Terran can counter disruptors with mines instead of having to pick up their siege tanks with medivacs.
c) Give it the old immortal Hardened Shield while it's in charge-up mode. This works similarly to (b) while also making disruptors vulnerable to EMP.
Ravager:
It just attacks too fast. It should be a caster/positional/anti-FF unit first, and a fighter second. The auto-attacks are just too strong and too fast and make it an a-move unit rather than a strategic unit. Also the casted projectile doesn't land fast enough, making it too easy to dodge and too ineffective vs forcefields.
Cyclone/Possible New Terran Unit:
I don't think Terran needs new units. SC2 has been a constant story of TvZ being fast and exciting (with the exception of infestor/broodlord), TvP being a story where Terran has a strong midgame and Protoss a strong lategame, and PvZ being pretty much outright broken. Blizzard is focusing on taking what makes TvZ fun (the baneling/marine dynamic) and giving it to PvZ. So what should they do with Terran? They've already addressed the late-game weakness of bio by buffing battlecruisers and banshees to allow for a skyterran transition, and they've made mech more viable against protoss by removing hardened shield on immortals. There are about a billion suggestions for different barracks units that would support a mech army, and any one of them would address the biggest weakness of bio: it's too hard to transition into mech.
In BW TvZ went from mostly bio all game, to bio with a lot of tanks in the late game, to bio with a total mech transition pioneered by Fantasy. LotV should focus on making the mech transition possible for terran, not in adding new units to the most complete race.
edit: reading over this I know I said Terran doesn't need new units and then suggested one. I'm only for adding a new unit if it's a barracks unit that supports mech armies, since that's the only hole in what's otherwise the most well-designed race in SC2.
On April 02 2015 08:12 Loccstana wrote: I wish blizzard to do something with the supply cap. It really needs to be raised to 250 with all these 3 and 4 supply units. I always feel that maxed out armys are too small, especially on the the larger maps.
You dont need to increase the supply cap. I think there is a really elegant solution to this as a function of economy that we will be covering in an upcoming article.
Now how receptive blizzard is to this is another issue altogether
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
I'm feeling the dumbest person on earth for ignoring this consequence (until now).
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
I'm feeling the dumbest person on earth for ignoring this consequence (until now).
Don't, it's something I really doubt most people (including myself!) would have ever considered. Nitty gritty details like that just aren't on the minds of most of us who play the game, trying not to supply block ourselves every 20 seconds
Still, it is an interesting topic, and from the arguments/examples presented it seems to be quite relevant to top tier play.
few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce its base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack aswell, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix this issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
I'm feeling the dumbest person on earth for ignoring this consequence (until now).
Don't, it's something I really doubt most people (including myself!) would have ever considered. Nitty gritty details like that just aren't on the minds of most of us who play the game, trying not to supply block ourselves every 20 seconds
Still, it is an interesting topic, and from the arguments/examples presented it seems to be quite relevant to top tier play.
Yeah dont feel stupid. A lot of pros dont think about it either. I had to tell a few of them that many of the LotV ladder maps don't have the correct minerals (1500/750).
Also its really hard to discuss the impact of the 12 worker start without looking at the numbers closely and in detail.
To start with yes the impact of protoss not having chronoboost on the early workers from 7-12 is something we need to look at critically (in detail and questioning the impacts, not necessarily saying its bad)
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
Remove invincibility entirely. Replace by giving it 10 armor while charging up to explode. This makes any sort of spell a potential counter to disruptors while keeping the disruptor strong against basic units. This also means that mech Terran can counter disruptors with mines instead of having to pick up their siege tanks with medivacs.
I think its important that the Disruptor cannot be killed easily so it is good against both a small army size or a large army size. That's what the invulnerability accomplishes and its why I am not a fan of replacing it with a shield.
But you are on to something about giving it a weakness to certain units. Perhaps it could be vulnerable some type of splash/abilities. Like what if Storm/Fungal/Widow Mines could counter it? That would create a bit of a new dynamic while maintaining its role as anti-deathball in most situations.
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
ya i totally agree, but I'm playing z/p and i rarely lose and disruptor/raveger is the reason
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
its not a huge change to the unit tho, were just adding an air attack and reducing its damage. also the reason why disruptor + warpprism is strong is mostly because of the disruptors invincibility mode, once they remove that it'll be much weaker.
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
its not a huge change to the unit tho, were just adding an air attack and reducing its damage. also the reason why disruptor + warpprism is strong is mostly because of the disruptors invincibility mode, once they remove that it'll be much weaker.
Yeah, the removal of the invincibility mode was what interested me most in your suggestion. I think it could create more interesting micro scenarios that those already created by the current unit. But I feel like the unit could really quickly become worthless. Like, you basically can't send it alone anymore, because it'll get one shotted by any army of reasonable size before you have the time to do anything, regardless of how much shield you give it. Think of the DPS of a pack of bio units, any isolated unit just disappears instantly, regardless of its HP (unless you give it a really ridiculous value ;D). You can't really use the disruptor in combination with other units because it has friendly fire, so I don't really see how the unit would be practical. Maybe give it an enormous shield value just for the duration of the ability? Like, something you can't ever offset early game but in mid-game you can hope to kill it with your army before it reaches its explosion point if you target fire?
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
its not a huge change to the unit tho, were just adding an air attack and reducing its damage. also the reason why disruptor + warpprism is strong is mostly because of the disruptors invincibility mode, once they remove that it'll be much weaker.
Yeah, the removal of the invincibility mode was what interested me most in your suggestion. I think it could create more interesting micro scenarios that those already created by the current unit. But I feel like the unit could really quickly become worthless. Like, you basically can't send it alone anymore, because it'll get one shotted by any army of reasonable size before you have the time to do anything, regardless of how much shield you give it. Think of the DPS of a pack of bio units, any isolated unit just disappears instantly, regardless of its HP (unless you give it a really ridiculous value ;D). You can't really use the disruptor in combination with other units because it has friendly fire, so I don't really see how the unit would be practical. Maybe give it an enormous shield value just for the duration of the ability? Like, something you can't ever offset early game but in mid-game you can hope to kill it with your army before it reaches its explosion point if you target fire?
yea thats probably true. theyre already pretty weak if your opponent splits properly, after that he can just kills your disruptors once theyre out of invinc. mode. i usually only use disruptors w/ warpprism support so i can pick them up afterwards, basically as if they were bw reavers.
Don't Disruptors outrun almost every unit including stimmed marines in their pre-activation time? I'm not sure how splitting against it would be reliable considering in the best case you're splitting your army into small portions that gets eaten up by Protoss' main army bit by bit. [at least in theory]
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
I'm feeling the dumbest person on earth for ignoring this consequence (until now).
Don't, it's something I really doubt most people (including myself!) would have ever considered. Nitty gritty details like that just aren't on the minds of most of us who play the game, trying not to supply block ourselves every 20 seconds
Still, it is an interesting topic, and from the arguments/examples presented it seems to be quite relevant to top tier play.
Yeah dont feel stupid. A lot of pros dont think about it either. I had to tell a few of them that many of the LotV ladder maps don't have the correct minerals (1500/750).
Also its really hard to discuss the impact of the 12 worker start without looking at the numbers closely and in detail.
To start with yes the impact of protoss not having chronoboost on the early workers from 7-12 is something we need to look at critically (in detail and questioning the impacts, not necessarily saying its bad)
I think between the slight eco disadvantage, Forcefields being weaker in PvZ, and Colossus being weaker in PvT, and the Warp Gate nerf, that maybe it's finally time to buff Zealot/Stalker a bit. Or make that damn Adept a core unit like it was supposed to be way back when.
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
Yeah you aren't kidding let a protoss do disruptor/warp prism, no muta = disruptor destroys your mineral line.
Remove invincibility entirely. Replace by giving it 10 armor while charging up to explode. This makes any sort of spell a potential counter to disruptors while keeping the disruptor strong against basic units. This also means that mech Terran can counter disruptors with mines instead of having to pick up their siege tanks with medivacs.
I think its important that the Ravager cannot be killed easily so it is good against both a small army size or a large army size. That's what the invulnerability accomplishes and its why I am not a fan of replacing it with a shield.
But you are on to something about giving it a weakness to certain units. Perhaps it could be vulnerable some type of splash/abilities. Like what if Storm/Fungal/Widow Mines could counter it? That would create a bit of a new dynamic while maintaining its role as anti-deathball in most situations.
I was thinking forcefield and fungal growth could counter it if they reworked the invulnerability. Dropships also counter it since you can qúickly pick up your units.
Imo, they need to rework the unit so that it can be 250 gas or something, 300 is just so much.
On April 04 2015 08:29 TT1 wrote: few adjustments i'd make in regards to the disruptor:
- remove its invulnerability mode and give it a strong shield instead - reduce their base damage (not sure by how much tho) and give it an air attack instead, that way protoss has a decent counter to both ground and air units w/ robo tech - lower its gas cost to 200-250'ish
Right now the disruptor overlaps way too much with the colossus, they both basically have the same role (strong/aoe ground dmg dealer). Given the option protoss would never make a colossus over a disruptor. Blizzard can fix that issue by giving the disruptor a different role and making it an anti air unit aswell, its an interesting direction to take the unit in. Toss has never had an anti air robo unit, it would sorta be like the protoss version of a Thor.
I also think that blizzard needs to rethink the warpgate nerf (duration + increased dmg), its way too severe. Cant say anything about adepts or stasis atm cus i haven't experimented enough with them.
I can't agree more. Disruptor needs a change
I think Disruptor needs a change too, but I disagree with changing its role hugely. If you find that there is too much overlap with the colossus, rework the colossus (or remove it to replace it with another unit ;D), if anything. Not sure about the disruptor being able to attack air. Maybe have 2 different modes of attack, one for ground only, similar to how it works currently, and another different one for air only. That way you create a decision when you activate your ability.
For now I'm enjoying the unit way more than a colossus. And imo if you micro well enough you come out ahead. The problem is disruptor + warp prism. This combo comes out way too quickly and is way too strong. You basically need dedicated anti-air to counter it.
Yeah you aren't kidding let a protoss do disruptor/warp prism, no muta = disruptor destroys your mineral line.
Won´t warp prism and medivac+tank mean that zerg has to get mutas or corruptors in every build or have no chance to stop the harras if the attacker does not screw up?
Adept: Right now, it looks like there isn't a single situation where you would build the adept over a stalker. I think the adept needs: -a shadow buff : it being able to fly? -a DPS buff : it's ridiculous that it's lower than the stalker (in general) which is known to be a low dps unit. -a speed buff, in order to make it more useful as a map control unit in the early game
Carrier: The carrier "release interceptor" ability looks like it has this purpose: let the interceptors fly over an area without committing your carrier there. This can be useful, for example, for 1) harassing - if your opponent has an undefended mineral line/production facilities you can release the interceptors without risking that your carrier gets killed by vikings/corruptors/etc. 2) "map control" or for defending from drops, you can release the interceptors in a common drop route and they will kill stuff pretty fast. The issues are, in order of importance (imo): - you can't focus fire with interceptors, meaning that if there's a spore crawler in a mineral line, for example, they will focus that instead of the workers, making the interceptors basically useless. I don't understand why they have to prevent you from microing something. - you lose all your interceptors, so you have to replace them. Releasing interceptors on a full carrier is like throwing 200 minerals down the drain. - interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed, which discourages the "map control" usage I like this ability but honestly I think they should reduce the cost of interceptors to make it really viable. Down to 15-20 minerals or something.
- interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed
wow, pretty amazing the ways they can come up with to mess up a cool idea. All people have asked for - for the last 5-6 years - is brood war-like carrier control and we still don't have it
- interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed
wow, pretty amazing the ways they can come up with to mess up a cool idea. All people have asked for - for the last 5-6 years - is brood war-like carrier control and we still don't have it
As far as I know, they have changed them to behave close to BW even in HOTS, problem is they were too costly for what you got and building time was 120 seconds. Now when they build for 90 seconds, and have new ability that let you send interceptors to attack one area but have duration and die in the end, they are a lot more useful. I've seen guys send Interceptors with that ability and just recall out, and Interceptors destroy whole base alone while Carriers aren't there.
- interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed
wow, pretty amazing the ways they can come up with to mess up a cool idea. All people have asked for - for the last 5-6 years - is brood war-like carrier control and we still don't have it
As far as I know, they have changed them to behave close to BW even in HOTS, problem is they were too costly for what you got and building time was 120 seconds. Now when they build for 90 seconds, and have new ability that let you send interceptors to attack one area but have duration and die in the end, they are a lot more useful. I've seen guys send Interceptors with that ability and just recall out, and Interceptors destroy whole base alone while Carriers aren't there.
Nobody is forcing you to use that ability though.
They didnt even come close to get them close to how bw-carriers worked.
- interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed
wow, pretty amazing the ways they can come up with to mess up a cool idea. All people have asked for - for the last 5-6 years - is brood war-like carrier control and we still don't have it
As far as I know, they have changed them to behave close to BW even in HOTS, problem is they were too costly for what you got and building time was 120 seconds. Now when they build for 90 seconds, and have new ability that let you send interceptors to attack one area but have duration and die in the end, they are a lot more useful. I've seen guys send Interceptors with that ability and just recall out, and Interceptors destroy whole base alone while Carriers aren't there.
Nobody is forcing you to use that ability though.
I use that ability all the time and I like the concept but I feel like it can be improved. You have to be allowed to focus fire, obviously interceptors will still be bound to the location they were originally released. It feels pretty ridiculous where you release interceptors in a mineral line with a turret, and all the interceptors target the turret doing 0 damage while you could kill lots of workers if you could focus fire.
I thought the ability would just let you pull them back, or worse; make you lose control and return them to you at the end of a set duration (~5-10 seconds)
randomly dieing at the end of the cast just isn't good
On April 04 2015 21:57 Cyro wrote: I thought the ability would just let you pull them back, or worse; make you lose control and return them to you at the end of a set duration (~5-10 seconds)
randomly dieing at the end of the cast just isn't good
I think that after a set duration the interceptors should go rogue and function as hostile units, you'd have swarms of interceptors patrolling dead areas of the map and so on.
On April 04 2015 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: David Kim talked about a new terran unit on the french stream? Anybody knows more?
- Flying unit (built with the starport). - Air To Air high fire rate but low damage - Ability : switch to Air to Ground with big range but unable to move (range 9)
Honestly this is quite similar to how I imagined the Viking to be redesigned (which I still think is highly preferable. the game needs to be cleaned up instead of being overflood with overlapping units).
On April 04 2015 22:24 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well that units seems to be very weird Oo Siege mode for air to ground? WHY
It's about giving it a severe disadvantage that allows it to have other very signifciant strenghts. However, with the introduction of Siege Tank drops, it also kinda overlaps in that regard. Therfore I am not sure I like the idea of it being not able to move. I rather give it a slow movement speed of 1.5-2.
I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
On April 04 2015 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: David Kim talked about a new terran unit on the french stream? Anybody knows more?
- Flying unit (built with the starport). - Air To Air high fire rate but low damage - Ability : switch to Air to Ground with big range but unable to move (range 9)
Honestly this is quite similar to how I imagined the Viking to be redesigned (which I still think is highly preferable. the game needs to be cleaned up instead of being overflood with overlapping units).
so... a viking that turns into a seige tank when landed... sounds like a real revolution to the Terran arsenal
I guess the only question is weather or not it can be picked up in medivacs?
On April 04 2015 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: David Kim talked about a new terran unit on the french stream? Anybody knows more?
- Flying unit (built with the starport). - Air To Air high fire rate but low damage - Ability : switch to Air to Ground with big range but unable to move (range 9)
Honestly this is quite similar to how I imagined the Viking to be redesigned (which I still think is highly preferable. the game needs to be cleaned up instead of being overflood with overlapping units).
so... a viking that turns into a seige tank when landed... sounds like a real revolution to the Terran arsenal
I guess the only question is weather or not it can be picked up in medivacs?
Things that fly can't be picked up and it doesn't land. Question answered. Kinda sad tho .
On April 04 2015 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: David Kim talked about a new terran unit on the french stream? Anybody knows more?
- Flying unit (built with the starport). - Air To Air high fire rate but low damage - Ability : switch to Air to Ground with big range but unable to move (range 9)
Honestly this is quite similar to how I imagined the Viking to be redesigned (which I still think is highly preferable. the game needs to be cleaned up instead of being overflood with overlapping units).
so... a viking that turns into a siege tank when landed... sounds like a real revolution to the Terran arsenal
I guess the only question is weather or not it can be picked up in medivacs?
Things that fly can't be picked up and it doesn't land. Question answered. Kinda sad tho .
Medivacs should pick up battlecruisers.
I thought someone said it "sieged" on the ground (could have just been a translation mistake).
On April 04 2015 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: David Kim talked about a new terran unit on the french stream? Anybody knows more?
- Flying unit (built with the starport). - Air To Air high fire rate but low damage - Ability : switch to Air to Ground with big range but unable to move (range 9)
Honestly this is quite similar to how I imagined the Viking to be redesigned (which I still think is highly preferable. the game needs to be cleaned up instead of being overflood with overlapping units).
so... a viking that turns into a siege tank when landed... sounds like a real revolution to the Terran arsenal
I guess the only question is weather or not it can be picked up in medivacs?
Things that fly can't be picked up and it doesn't land. Question answered. Kinda sad tho .
Medivacs should pick up battlecruisers.
I thought someone said it "sieged" on the ground (could have just been a translation mistake).
Nah, they turn into an air-to-ground siege is what David said. But as I said, he also mentioned they're looking into other designs aswell. Not sure how I feel about this design, I feel it overlaps with several units already in the game and doesn't have a unique function yet :/.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I'd much prefer a new bio (baracks) unit, tbh. Bio struggles with sustainability over the course of the game and transitioning out of it is a chore. I guess changing the ghost might accomplish that, and the ghost really needs some change :/.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I completely agree!! Throw in the BC and it could be a complete race. If they insist I think an early game rax support unit (caster) has the most potential.
On April 04 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
This is very different though. First of all, it's only 9 range. Not like 15+ as Tempests and SH are. Secondly, due to its immobility its constantly a vulnerable target to focus fire. So I don't think there is an issue here from a microinteraction perspective.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I agree with this. Marines are basically the only unit I wouldn't touch. Everything else could use an overhaul.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I disagree. Terran needs a new unit or a redesign of certain units because bio play doesn't have an effective late gate. The unit should be gas intensive and mobile imo.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I disagree. Terran needs a new unit or a redesign of certain units because bio play doesn't have an effective late gate. The unit should be gas intensive and mobile imo.
Upgraded Reaper or you could fix the Ghost and change its cost around a bit.
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. Then ofc if your a really good terran you predict/react to this and move forward instead of backwards.
On April 04 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
This is very different though. First of all, it's only 9 range. Not like 15+ as Tempests and SH are. Secondly, due to its immobility its constantly a vulnerable target to focus fire. So I don't think there is an issue here from a microinteraction perspective.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I agree with this. Marines are basically the only unit I wouldn't touch. Everything else could use an overhaul.
Lol. Hilarious. And this is why Blizzard doesn't listen to the fanbase. "I think we should just change everything". Lol. What a joke.
On April 04 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
This is very different though. First of all, it's only 9 range. Not like 15+ as Tempests and SH are. Secondly, due to its immobility its constantly a vulnerable target to focus fire. So I don't think there is an issue here from a microinteraction perspective.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I agree with this. Marines are basically the only unit I wouldn't touch. Everything else could use an overhaul.
Lol. Hilarious. And this is why Blizzard doesn't listen to the fanbase. "I think we should just change everything". Lol. What a joke.
Why are you on TL if you have an aversion to discussion? Please let us talk in peace and go away.
Well the thing is they won´t redesign the entire terran race. So there is literally no reason to suggest it because it is not going to happen.
Flying unit (built with the starport). Air To Air high fire rate but low damage Ability : switch the damage to Air to Ground with big range (9) but unable to move (still in the air) Idea behind the unit : defending against mass mutas/phoenix and forcing engagement There is no mention of it being on the ground.
On April 04 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
This is very different though. First of all, it's only 9 range. Not like 15+ as Tempests and SH are. Secondly, due to its immobility its constantly a vulnerable target to focus fire. So I don't think there is an issue here from a microinteraction perspective.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I agree with this. Marines are basically the only unit I wouldn't touch. Everything else could use an overhaul.
Lol. Hilarious. And this is why Blizzard doesn't listen to the fanbase. "I think we should just change everything". Lol. What a joke.
Why are you on TL if you have an aversion to discussion? Please let us talk in peace and go away.
I'm not trying to derail any discussion. You and I can discuss right now. But saying that you think every unit but 1 needs to be completely redesigned is honestly laughable. The game is so well balanced at the moment and in its current form, almost nothing (in HOTS) needs to be changed. Even if it wasn't completely balanced, do you not also think that someone proposing a redesign of every unit is ridiculous?
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
no race desperately needed any new units. it's not about fixing things at this point but about giving the players new stuff and spicing things up.
On April 05 2015 01:15 andrewlt wrote: Well balanced and fun are two entirely different things. The current swarm hosts and metagame are well balanced but they are stale and boring.
I totally agree. If there was only one unit that could be changed/removed, it would have to be swarm hosts.
On April 04 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't see the point in giving that unit the siege mode at all tbh. These "long range" solutions didn't really work out that great so far in sc2 if you ask me.
This is very different though. First of all, it's only 9 range. Not like 15+ as Tempests and SH are. Secondly, due to its immobility its constantly a vulnerable target to focus fire. So I don't think there is an issue here from a microinteraction perspective.
Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
I agree with this. Marines are basically the only unit I wouldn't touch. Everything else could use an overhaul.
Lol. Hilarious. And this is why Blizzard doesn't listen to the fanbase. "I think we should just change everything". Lol. What a joke.
Why are you on TL if you have an aversion to discussion? Please let us talk in peace and go away.
Hmm. Seems to me that you are the one with an "aversion to discussion", as you still haven't responded to my reply.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
no race desperately needed any new units. it's not about fixing things at this point but about giving the players new stuff and spicing things up.
Which can be done while you tweak/redesign existing units.
But saying that you think every unit but 1 needs to be completely redesigned is honestly laughable.
First of all, take all of your strawmans away. I am not talking about huge redeisgns to all units. I am talking about tweaks to some units and redesigns to other units.
Anyway, the point here is that there is alot potential in most units that hasn't been explored because Blizzard has done a poor job of tweaking them over the years. Most of the potential here isn't something thats very complicated to be unlocked, but can be done in 5 mins in the editor.
My two cents is to change that instead of making the Disruptor and the Nydus worm invulnerable is to make it so they get +10 armor or more during the duration instead.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
no race desperately needed any new units. it's not about fixing things at this point but about giving the players new stuff and spicing things up.
Which can be done while you tweak/redesign existing units.
But saying that you think every unit but 1 needs to be completely redesigned is honestly laughable.
First of all, take all of your strawmans away. I am not talking about huge redeisgns to all units. I am talking about tweaks to some units and redesigns to other units.
Anyway, the point here is that there is alot potential in most units that hasn't been explored because Blizzard has done a poor job of tweaking them over the years. Most of the potential here isn't something thats very complicated to be unlocked, but can be done in 5 mins in the editor.
And this is what they are doing in LOTV. But have you seen the amount of bitching about it already, after being out for merely a day? It's a beta guys. Anyway, there is almost no reason to tweak anything in HOTS, which is why they haven't, because it's at a very good balance right now.
And this is what they are doing in LOTV. But have you seen the amount of !@#$%^&* about it already, after being out for merely a day? It's a beta guys.
They barely changed any exisiting units since Blizzcon in November. Let's look at some units that they could and should have been touching. Reaper: Useless after early game for 5 years. All air units in the game (basically): Lack of moving shot. Why? PDD: The new 20-second timer isn't a proper tweak. That's a nerf to a boring ability w/ lack of interesting countermicro and a low skillcap. Yes you can kill it, but your never actually rewarded for doing so. (this is very easy to test in the unit tester fyi). Snipe and EMP have both been in a really bad spot (+ they are boring) for a long time and nukes underutilized. Thor: Microless a-move unit. The transformation thing actually had potential, but the implementation never made sense.
(And that was just a couple of terran examples. It gets much worse for protoss).
Anyway, there is almost no reason to tweak anything in HOTS, which is why they haven't, because it's at a very good balance right now.
Noone is talking about balance here. Its entirely focussed on design. You improve micro interactions in the game by tweaking stats. Micro-interactions do not need months in public beta to created.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
no race desperately needed any new units. it's not about fixing things at this point but about giving the players new stuff and spicing things up.
You bring up a good point. The main purpose of an expansion, from blizzard's perspective, is not to improve the game, but to introduce completely new things to keep the game fresh. This is sad for the "loyal starcraft 2 fans" but it's indeed a way to attract more casual/inconsistent players/viewers.
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.
On April 04 2015 23:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Terran seems to be a race which doesn't really need new units tbh, just fix existing ones to be better at their initial purpose. (siege tanks, thors, ravens, ghost?)
no race desperately needed any new units. it's not about fixing things at this point but about giving the players new stuff and spicing things up.
You bring up a good point. The main purpose of an expansion, from blizzard's perspective, is not to improve the game, but to introduce completely new things to keep the game fresh. This is sad for the "loyal starcraft 2 fans" but it's indeed a way to attract more casual/inconsistent players/viewers.
Precisely. Though I'm pretty sure they know it's the final iteration here and will care about the quality of the game.
i've watched very little lotv so far, but from what i've seen i'm a little concerned...
don't get me wrong, i'm not a blizzard pitchforker, and i'm actually really excited for the new expansion. but a lot of the interactions involving the new units seem a bit off...
-stasis trap seems very boring and annoying anti-micro -pvt seems like it's still about desperately trying to hold on to bases, AOEing mass bio with gateway units as a buffer. disruptor is interesting, but still has the classic protoss issue of being a big fragile ball of AOE gas -roach/ravager vs roach/ravager is worse to watch than roach vs roach -sieged tank drops seem ridiculous and abusive, not that they're "imbalanced" it just seems really bizarre and out of place
again, haven't seen a lot and haven't played it at all, so i'm not claiming to know best, but my thoughts on what i've seen aren't 100% positive. to be quite honest despite its issues i really enjoyed hots design, and while i support radical changes i'm hoping they bring radical and fun new game dynamics, and so far... eh...
anyone who's played/watched more have any thoughts?
On April 05 2015 07:51 brickrd wrote: i've watched very little lotv so far, but from what i've seen i'm a little concerned...
don't get me wrong, i'm not a blizzard pitchforker, and i'm actually really excited for the new expansion. but a lot of the interactions involving the new units seem a bit off...
-stasis trap seems very boring and annoying anti-micro -pvt seems like it's still about desperately trying to hold on to bases, AOEing mass bio with gateway units as a buffer. disruptor is interesting, but still has the classic protoss issue of being a big fragile ball of AOE gas -roach/ravager vs roach/ravager is worse to watch than roach vs roach -sieged tank drops seem ridiculous and abusive, not that they're "imbalanced" it just seems really bizarre and out of place
again, haven't seen a lot and haven't played it at all, so i'm not claiming to know best, but my thoughts on what i've seen aren't 100% positive. to be quite honest despite its issues i really enjoyed hots design, and while i support radical changes i'm hoping they bring radical and fun new game dynamics, and so far... eh...
anyone who's played/watched more have any thoughts?
I just wish there was a way to make zealot/stalker comps stronger without breaking the game, protoss is so reliant on gimmicky spells and aoe and it's not fun to play or play against.
- interceptors "disappear" even if they don't get killed
wow, pretty amazing the ways they can come up with to mess up a cool idea. All people have asked for - for the last 5-6 years - is brood war-like carrier control and we still don't have it
we do have it actually, but we also have the option of dumping the interceptor, the carrier is really sick atm imo
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
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 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 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!)
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 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)
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 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
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.
(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.
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.
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 range and how it is risky-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol.
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. .
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 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
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.
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.
you still have to cross the map with ur carrier... wtf are u talking about
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
so a safe bet would be around 15-16?
IIRC at least two mineral fields are far so I would say more like 18.
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)
so a safe bet would be around 15-16?
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
In SC2 workers mine on average 42 minerals a minute. Due to worker pairing though 16 workers is always the most efficient number on base.
So always have 2 workers per patch due to the ai for max efficiency (I.e. no wasted time bouncing between patches).
So you want 16 workers then when the 750 mines out you want 8 and you want another base +8 workers to saturate it. Then you want a 4th for when the nat 750 mines out but by this time the main is probably mining out fully so dont make more workers for minerals.
I guess if you want 3 base hots econ you need 4 bases by 6:30 in LotV. This actually would give you 3.5 base hots econ in LotV if you fully sat the Nat third and fourth with 16 on min and 8 in the main.
But I really hate this economy because its so counter intuitive and it punishes you for not having bases.
On April 05 2015 00:58 Schroedinger wrote: Flying unit (built with the starport). Air To Air high fire rate but low damage Ability : switch the damage to Air to Ground with big range (9) but unable to move (still in the air) Idea behind the unit : defending against mass mutas/phoenix and forcing engagement There is no mention of it being on the ground.
I kind of like this concept...could be cool.
I just caught the David Kim interview in the English vod (http://www.twitch.tv/wcs/b/646085580, question starts around 9:08:00) and there were a few more details:
Flying unit (built with the starport, can be double produced via reactors). Costs about 100 resources more than a banshee Moves fast Decent health Has AOE air-to-air damage 6(?) range Ability: Transforms, losing air-to-air attack and becoming stationary, gain a single target air-to-ground with siege (9) range Design goal is to allow terrans an additional aggressive option for both mech and bio in late game TvZ while still keeping mutas viable in match up. In internal testing, they've noticed that in low numbers, the new unit can be sniped by muta hit-and-runs. However once a critical mass is reached, then the zerg has to transition from mutas to fungal growth, corruptors, etc.
Overall, it seems like an improved BW Corsair for Terran. Fun times.
In SC2 workers mine on average 42 minerals a minute. Due to worker pairing though 16 workers is always the most efficient number on base.
That's not true at all. It depends widely on the mineral positions. There are close and far patches (not always the same amount per base) and the distances are different map to map, even spawn position to spawn position in a way that affects the amount of income that you can get with X amount of workers. Some close patches are close close patches, some others are far close patches, some far patches are far far patches, some are close far patches etc. There's not a very good distance snap, -particularly- when they're placed at any kind of angle
depending on the position - just out of common patch positions here, there are some fucked up ones - workers usually mine about 30-55% of the patch capacity each. Going from 4 workers to 8, you can't double your income on many bases because the close patches are a bit too close and the first worker gets more minerals than it's "supposed" to, blocking the second one.
On some other patches, two workers might mine 45% of capacity each (for 90%) - and the third worker might just get that last 10%. On another, they might mine only 35% each (70%), so the third worker gets 30%. It's HIGHLY variable and one of the most silly things to change map to map and spawn position to spawn position, to not have a standard for i mean. It's not just close patch and far patch.
If you have one of those patches where a worker can only mine it 33% of the time, then you could have 14 workers on that base and worker 15, 16 and 17 going onto that last patch will have exactly the same efficiency. By that logic, you should stop at 14 if that mineral per minute per worker is too low for you, or go all the way to 17.
On one close patch you might get 450 minerals in 10 minutes, on another you might get 540 - it just changes sooooooo much because of where someone clicked it for that particular spawn position on the map editor.
There are literally positions on some of the old WOL maps where you can say for sure, if he plays as well as you do, your warpgate in 4gate vs 4gate pvp would finish ~5-10 game seconds earlier - due to nothing more than mineral position imbalance. Some of your close patches are closer than his. You can play on the slowest game speed on each spawn position, mineral stack perfectly and you'll see income diverge by a consistent and significant amount.
Generalist statements are good for basic learning, on the surface it's true but deep down it's not at all. 2 workers per patch is a general rule for efficiency but nothing more
---
sorry if that's way too ranty, a little part of me has been going crazy hearing people talk about "16 workers on minerals is always the most efficient, 24 is always the max income" for the last 5 years >__>
On April 05 2015 00:58 Schroedinger wrote: Flying unit (built with the starport). Air To Air high fire rate but low damage Ability : switch the damage to Air to Ground with big range (9) but unable to move (still in the air) Idea behind the unit : defending against mass mutas/phoenix and forcing engagement There is no mention of it being on the ground.
I kind of like this concept...could be cool.
I just caught the David Kim interview in the English vod (http://www.twitch.tv/wcs/b/646085580, question starts around 9:08:00) and there were a few more details:
Flying unit (built with the starport, can be double produced via reactors). Costs about 100 resources more than a banshee Moves fast Decent health Has AOE air-to-air damage 6(?) range Ability: Transforms, losing air-to-air attack and becoming stationary, gain a single target air-to-ground with siege (9) range Design goal is to allow terrans an additional aggressive option for both mech and bio in late game TvZ while still keeping mutas viable in match up. In internal testing, they've noticed that in low numbers, the new unit can be sniped by muta hit-and-runs. However once a critical mass is reached, then the zerg has to transition from mutas to fungal growth, corruptors, etc.
Overall, it seems like an improved BW Corsair for Terran. Fun times.
Yep its a good role (though I had imagined that a reworked Thor + Viking good fulfill the same thing - but I take this). Blizzard has always been good at identifying needed unit roles, however, their weakness has always been the execution. So I am interested in seeing how this works out.
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
Definitely a complaint I have. If you're not paying super close attention, it's actually quite hard to see the attack in game =/
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote: yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv
Same =/
Feels like no matter how early I take my third, I always start hearing that my mineral fields are being depleted while the third base is building -_-
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
One thing I think it is going to do a good job of though is making all ins feel more like all ins.
How many times in WOL and HOTS did we see attacks that should be all ins (from every race really) that did some damage but didn't kill the opponent, and the all inner regroups and goes for round 2,3 and sometimes even more because they were still mining their main and natural.
Now you might get 1 or 2 good pushes with an all in but if you don't kill the opponent or don't do enough damage to expand behind it safely without fear of a counter push then you are going to go broke fast and die a horrible death.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 07 2015 00:39 DinoMight wrote:
On April 07 2015 00:21 royalroadweed wrote:
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
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.
The thing is this might break or do worse for other match-ups. Just for example, Stalkers having lower damage against armored might make them quite a bit weaker against Vikings(so they won't be as good for protecting Colossi as they are right now), while better against Banshees that are already underused in PvT.
On the other hand, I wouldn't suggest to do all of these changes at once, because Blizzard is known for doing that and fucking that up. If you buff Stalkers and Archons while nerf Mutas at the same time it is quite counterproductive, you are getting really close to deleting them from the ZvP.
The thing is this might break or do worse for other match-ups. Just for example, Stalkers having lower damage against armored might make them quite a bit weaker against Vikings, while better against Banshees that are already underused in PvT.
On the other hand, I wouldn't suggest to do all of these changes at once, because Blizzard is known for doing that and fucking that up. If you buff Stalkers and Archons while nerf Mutas at the same time it is quite counterproductive, you are getting really close to deleting them from the ZvP.
I lookat it this way: The current balance structure of the game is messed up. which means there is little to any downside (except using lots of time) to overhaul/tweak the majority of the units in the game.
Yes Stalkers/Collosus might become weaker vs Viking then. Is there a way we can change this while making the game more fun as well? Oh let's try solution XXX --> Might result in YYY being OP --> Change ZZZ to balance that out... etc.
The methodlogy above is not an endless proces, but its definitely a proces that is time-consuming as most units must be tweaked.
But remember, that its not as if we are going from a stable structure that we know works to an unstable structure. We are going from something that doesn't work and isn't very fun (Colosus sucks) to something that could work if enough time is spent on it and could be more fun if properly implemented.
Yes but that doesn't apply for Mutalisks. They are pretty much the most fun units that Zerg has against Protoss, what would you like to see more? Hydralisks and Roaches? Ultralisks? Infestors? Brood Lords? Or god forbid turtle Swarm Hosts?
The real problem here is again that SC2 is very hard-counter oriented game. For example the real problem right now with Mutalisks is that if you are ahead as Zerg(or if your economy isn't damaged) you can get a ton of them in a short time and if opponent doesn't have Phoenixes already he will have a hard time dealing with them. By the time he does make Phoenixes and upgrade them with +2 range, you will have a lot of Corruptors as well and it might not be enough. However, Protoss players that recognize this and get Phoenixes on time, Mutalisks are like dead-tech. The moment you have 15-20 Mutalisks and he has 8-10 Phoenixes you can't do anything with them and you must transition or try to get Infestors and kill Phoenixes(which is quite hard with Phoenix movement speed).
It is really hard to balance things around this, if only Phoenixes weren't hard-counters to Mutas while Mutas were weaker and if you could be able to beat them with Stalkers, Storms and Archons it would be a lot better. But for that to happen we have to redesign a ton of units.
Yes but that doesn't apply for Mutalisks. They are pretty much the most fun units that Zerg has against Protoss, what would you like to see more?
I wasn't suggesting a nerf to Mutalisks though. I was suggesting that ground protoss units better should deal with them. On the other hand, Phoenix should be less of a hardcounter.
But I think its ok if Stalkers are worse vs Vikings as I don't want Colossus to have an AA-vulnerability, and the game should balanced and designed around this.
Instead I imagine the Viking as a soft Muta counter with high mobility and very fast transformation. The Thor has no bonus damage vs light but larger splash, so the Thor isn't good vs Mutas in smaller numbers but strong vs them in large numbers.
The transformation-aspect is maintained and its AA vs armored is buffed by 100% (yep that much is needed). The Thor is now the core AA vs armored unit similar to the Goliath and it has received a movement speed as well. It can also transform instantly between diferent modes and therefore mech becomes more focussed on transformation micro here.
Worth noting that the combination of the Thor and Viking here roughly accomplishes the same thing as the new terran unit.
On the other hand, Phoenix should be less of a hardcounter.
I think phoenix vs muta is pretty fine - muta viper will trade well against them even if you can get a decent phoenix count (if), and phoenix's are DEDICATED anti-light anti-air units while mutalisks hit everything for full damage.
Phoenix are also significantly more expensive and require big investment in the production facilities for any kind of mass-building, while mutas don't - so even if toss goes straight air - and he's somehow on the same gas count as you - and there is no other consideration, then you can outnumber his phoenix using mutas while adding a significant amount of vipers for parasitic swarm.
They're strong with the range upgrade (requiring fleet beacon, additional cost and taking like 3 real minutes to reach) but they need to be. Phoenix are generally underused and even when described as a hard counter here, i think because of the drawbacks they're only a soft counter.
Just buff the adepts DPS and let it shoot up, blizzard plz
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 07 2015 00:39 DinoMight wrote:
On April 07 2015 00:21 royalroadweed wrote:
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote: yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv
Same =/
Feels like no matter how early I take my third, I always start hearing that my mineral fields are being depleted while the third base is building -_-
What race you play? HuK almost lost to gold zerg because ravager is insanely broken
I've been playing Random, but I am mainly a Toss player. I lost once as P to 3 ravagers attacking my natural at 4 minutes, though lol
I think phoenix vs muta is pretty fine - muta viper will trade well against them even if you can get a decent phoenix count (if), and phoenix's are DEDICATED anti-light anti-air units while mutalisks hit everything for full damage
Oh yeh, I also imagine redesigns of Corrupters and Abduct as I don't like them. My list is pretty large here. Lots of things to be improved upon.
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 07 2015 00:39 DinoMight wrote:
On April 07 2015 00:21 royalroadweed wrote:
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote: yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv
Same =/
Feels like no matter how early I take my third, I always start hearing that my mineral fields are being depleted while the third base is building -_-
What race you play? HuK almost lost to gold zerg because ravager is insanely broken
I've been playing Random, but I am mainly a Toss player. I lost once as P to 3 ravagers attacking my natural at 4 minutes, though lol
ive seen huk do i gate fast nexus into robo at 3 minute mark, rush out a warp prism and immo/disruptor to stay alive during ravager rush
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 07 2015 00:39 DinoMight wrote:
On April 07 2015 00:21 royalroadweed wrote:
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote: yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv
Same =/
Feels like no matter how early I take my third, I always start hearing that my mineral fields are being depleted while the third base is building -_-
What race you play? HuK almost lost to gold zerg because ravager is insanely broken
I've been playing Random, but I am mainly a Toss player. I lost once as P to 3 ravagers attacking my natural at 4 minutes, though lol
ive seen huk do i gate fast nexus into robo at 3 minute mark, rush out a warp prism and immo/disruptor to stay alive during ravager rush
That's what I tried to do that game, I guess I just didn't do it fast enough. I'm not stressing *too* much about dying to things like early Ravager rushes or Cyclones as I know they'll be changed. Still, I'll keep working on it!
On April 06 2015 20:12 [PkF] Wire wrote: Hmmm I was hoping for more regular waves of invites.
I hope I'm in though ^^
To be honest, I expect more frequent invites after the next wave. This first build of LotV has quite a few bugs and issues that I think they want to sort out before adding a lot more testers.
Hopefully. Even if I don't get to play it before the open beta, I wish a large number of players of all levels can offer feedback. They better involve as many persons of the community as possible, this is of huge importance for the SC2 scene that that last iteration is solid and can stand the test of time.
On April 07 2015 00:39 DinoMight wrote:
On April 07 2015 00:21 royalroadweed wrote:
On April 06 2015 10:11 royalroadweed wrote: Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.
I've changed my mind. MMA is disgusting with these things.
Oh, yeah. They are totally broken.
But I'd rather have a broken unit everyone tests than a terrible unit nobody wants to play with (Adept, new Colossus).
Yeah I think the adept will receive substantial buffs or will be changed massively (I'd prefer this option) because there is simply not enough incentive to build them and you very rarely see them on streams past the very early game (what is even the use of shockwave ? Cost for cost, even light units such as hydras and lings, when upgraded, seem to slaughter adepts). The new colossus seems retardedly weak (less range, less damage ? Please. Just scrap the unit if you don't like it).
On April 07 2015 03:03 opisska wrote: Now is the first time I have actually seem some LoTV gameplay. All the things seem quite fun and I don't think that form watching alone you can tell how they feel, but some visual issues are obvious:
- the minimap color change is plain stupid - the cyclone lock-ons and its attack in general are not very visible. An un-informed HoTS player will not even realize that they are doing something in battles (tested).
- I think the minimap color change is universally despised and will go at the first batch of changes. - I have two problems with the cyclones as far as graphics go : 1) the attack is indeed not visible enough. 2) the range indicators on the other hand when lock-on is activated are visible for everyone and make the screen so messy it's unreadable. Units normally don't show their range when you don't control them (tanks, tempests...), why should the cyclone be different ? Just reduce the range so that experienced players can get a grasp of it (it is too large anyway) and remove the range indicator.
I'm a middle of the pack gold/plat player in HotS, for what it's worth, and I've played a few folks already that I've absolutely crushed so I think there already are a wide range of skills in.
On April 07 2015 04:32 TT1 wrote: yea i dunno.. i always feel broke in lotv
Same =/
Feels like no matter how early I take my third, I always start hearing that my mineral fields are being depleted while the third base is building -_-
What race you play? HuK almost lost to gold zerg because ravager is insanely broken
I've been playing Random, but I am mainly a Toss player. I lost once as P to 3 ravagers attacking my natural at 4 minutes, though lol
ive seen huk do i gate fast nexus into robo at 3 minute mark, rush out a warp prism and immo/disruptor to stay alive during ravager rush
I've been going for a quick stargate off of a nexus-gate opener, never lost to a single ravager rush. Oracles/void rays crush that pretty easily.
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.
Protoss just needs more core units, rather than building nothing but stalkers and throwing in a few sentries or disruptors. It's not as fun as it could be.
The reliance on deep robo tech or storm is too much because zealot/stalker can't fight battles vs too many compositions especially into the mid and late game without heavily leaning on them and it's just not fun. They have the right idea nerfing colossus and warpgate but protoss as a race needs actual reliable and strong core units capable of fighting marine/marauder/medivac or roach/ravager COST EFFICIENTLY in the midgame - or if they're expected to have lower economy, more than cost efficiently.
Stalkers are a nice, fun unit; they do alright vs armored but need immortal/sentry support to take roaches well, that's fine enough. They don't cut it vs too many units though, and particularly they don't scale well in huge numbers partially due to size and lack of DPS
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
Because it could be so much more, and that would be awesome. Also, lurkers? Reapers are used in the first 3 minutes of the game and then everybody forgets that they exist - the only reason Lurkers are not in way more games is because other units outshine them. Lurker is still an awesome unit for trading against many unit compositions, people just don't bother to transition because ravagers or bouncing between a t1 unit and omgwtfmutas is straight out overpowered right now
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.
Protoss just needs more core units, rather than building nothing but stalkers and throwing in a few sentries or disruptors. It's not as fun as it could be.
The reliance on deep robo tech or storm is too much because zealot/stalker can't fight battles vs too many compositions especially into the mid and late game without heavily leaning on them and it's just not fun. They have the right idea nerfing colossus and warpgate but protoss as a race needs actual reliable and strong core units capable of fighting marine/marauder/medivac or roach/ravager COST EFFICIENTLY in the midgame - or if they're expected to have lower economy, more than cost efficiently.
Stalkers are a nice, fun unit; they do alright vs armored but need immortal/sentry support to take roaches well, that's fine enough. They don't cut it vs too many units though, and particularly they don't scale well in huge numbers partially due to size and lack of DPS
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
Because it could be so much more, and that would be awesome. Also, lurkers? Reapers are used in the first 3 minutes of the game and then everybody forgets that they exist - the only reason Lurkers are not in way more games is because other units outshine them. Lurker is still an awesome unit for trading against many unit compositions, people just don't bother to transition because ravagers or bouncing between a t1 unit and omgwtfmutas is straight out overpowered right now
Maybe we could nerf blink and buff the stalker to resemble a dragoon more, and instead focus the blinking role onto the adept? Maybe even give the Zealot its 10 shields back. It seems to me that the 200% damage bonus for warping in units and more exposed warp-in due to the time extension (so if you're against a proxy pylon you still have good defenders' advantage by taking out the incoming units with lings or something) means that gateway units are ready to get buffed again. Not sure how it would affect sentries, but there should definitely be a push for more possible use of Stalkers other than anti-air and Zealots more than harassment/mineral sink.
Comma should be after reapers. I'm agreeing with you - I like lurkers just the way they are. I'd even say the change should be to ravagers, having them come out later (e.g. upgrade that becomes available at lair tech) so the tech choice becomes roach -> ravager or roach/hydra -> lurker or ravager dependent on situation.
I'm iffy on this second part atm since I haven't actually played around with the Zerg units much, only the new Swarm Host and Lurker. How does the current upgrade work (I can't find anywhere that specifies it) and how much does it cost to morph a roach?
On April 07 2015 22:01 Ramiz1989 wrote: Yes but that doesn't apply for Mutalisks. They are pretty much the most fun units that Zerg has against Protoss, what would you like to see more? Hydralisks and Roaches? Ultralisks? Infestors? Brood Lords? Or god forbid turtle Swarm Hosts?
The real problem here is again that SC2 is very hard-counter oriented game. For example the real problem right now with Mutalisks is that if you are ahead as Zerg(or if your economy isn't damaged) you can get a ton of them in a short time and if opponent doesn't have Phoenixes already he will have a hard time dealing with them. By the time he does make Phoenixes and upgrade them with +2 range, you will have a lot of Corruptors as well and it might not be enough. However, Protoss players that recognize this and get Phoenixes on time, Mutalisks are like dead-tech. The moment you have 15-20 Mutalisks and he has 8-10 Phoenixes you can't do anything with them and you must transition or try to get Infestors and kill Phoenixes(which is quite hard with Phoenix movement speed).
It is really hard to balance things around this, if only Phoenixes weren't hard-counters to Mutas while Mutas were weaker and if you could be able to beat them with Stalkers, Storms and Archons it would be a lot better. But for that to happen we have to redesign a ton of units.
Mutalisks are air units, so it's better than the alternative. It's okay for pure air to fade out of power because otherwise you wouldn't even need maps - people play with units who ignore terrain anyway. Imo StarCraft is all it's iterations does a reasonably fine job of making terrain important, so air units should have harassing/supporting roles for that to stay. The way zerg can tech switch so massively to a unit that requires hard countering (which the mutalisk arguably is, most of protoss stuff cant even attack them and that regeneration ability from HotS made storm useless vs them as well) is quite disgusting too.
Maybe we could nerf blink and buff the stalker to resemble a dragoon more, and instead focus the blinking role onto the adept?
And then the Stalker starts overlappping with the Immortal....
Not necessarily. You don't really see immortals massed in the way stalkers are. Stalkers could still retain some of their maneuverability to contend with muta/viking/skytoss but be a general-purpose ranged unit like a not-retarded dragoon, while immortals retain their anti-armor purpose. In any case you'd see a adept-stalker-immortal gradient and all you'd need to do is have the adept and immortal far enough away from the stalker to have making each unit feasible under a given set of circumstances.
On April 08 2015 03:44 Cyro wrote: I didn't pay particular attention there but i think roaches can just morph right away for 75 gas, a small mineral sink and 15 seconds or so of time
Oh... well in that case we can start with the upgrade just requiring a lair, and go from there.
On April 07 2015 22:01 Ramiz1989 wrote: Yes but that doesn't apply for Mutalisks. They are pretty much the most fun units that Zerg has against Protoss, what would you like to see more? Hydralisks and Roaches? Ultralisks? Infestors? Brood Lords? Or god forbid turtle Swarm Hosts?
The real problem here is again that SC2 is very hard-counter oriented game. For example the real problem right now with Mutalisks is that if you are ahead as Zerg(or if your economy isn't damaged) you can get a ton of them in a short time and if opponent doesn't have Phoenixes already he will have a hard time dealing with them. By the time he does make Phoenixes and upgrade them with +2 range, you will have a lot of Corruptors as well and it might not be enough. However, Protoss players that recognize this and get Phoenixes on time, Mutalisks are like dead-tech. The moment you have 15-20 Mutalisks and he has 8-10 Phoenixes you can't do anything with them and you must transition or try to get Infestors and kill Phoenixes(which is quite hard with Phoenix movement speed).
It is really hard to balance things around this, if only Phoenixes weren't hard-counters to Mutas while Mutas were weaker and if you could be able to beat them with Stalkers, Storms and Archons it would be a lot better. But for that to happen we have to redesign a ton of units.
Mutalisks are air units, so it's better than the alternative. It's okay for pure air to fade out of power because otherwise you wouldn't even need maps - people play with units who ignore terrain anyway. Imo StarCraft is all it's iterations does a reasonably fine job of making terrain important, so air units should have harassing/supporting roles for that to stay. The way zerg can tech switch so massively to a unit that requires hard countering (which the mutalisk arguably is, most of protoss stuff cant even attack them and that regeneration ability from HotS made storm useless vs them as well) is quite disgusting too.
What if it was like in the campaign where Vipers were made from Mutalisks? Could have a greater spire requirement or something. You either keep up the flock or have a small number from which you can tech into vipers.
Maybe we could nerf blink and buff the stalker to resemble a dragoon more, and instead focus the blinking role onto the adept?
And then the Stalker starts overlappping with the Immortal....
Not necessarily. You don't really see immortals massed in the way stalkers are. Stalkers could still retain some of their maneuverability to contend with muta/viking/skytoss but be a general-purpose ranged unit like a not-retarded dragoon, while immortals retain their anti-armor purpose. In any case you'd see a adept-stalker-immortal gradient and all you'd need to do is have the adept and immortal far enough away from the stalker to have making each unit feasible under a given set of circumstances. On April 08 2015 03:44 Cyro wrote: I didn't pay particular attention there but i think roaches can just morph right away for 75 gas, a small mineral sink and 15 seconds or so of time
Oh... well in that case we can start with the upgrade just requiring a lair, and go from there.
If I'm forgetting anything it's early pls don't sue. And I am neglecting unit upgrades like chargelots from zealots or 3/3 marines from marines
What about add an upgrade in twighlight council as an alternative to blink (not a replacement) to gain ability to transform stalkers into 1 of 2 kinds of souped up stalkers for later stages in the game? Something like: 1) short range ground to ground only, heavily armored stalker 2) long range ground to air only, low shields but lots of health stalker
Maybe we could nerf blink and buff the stalker to resemble a dragoon more, and instead focus the blinking role onto the adept?
And then the Stalker starts overlappping with the Immortal....
Not necessarily. You don't really see immortals massed in the way stalkers are. Stalkers could still retain some of their maneuverability to contend with muta/viking/skytoss but be a general-purpose ranged unit like a not-retarded dragoon, while immortals retain their anti-armor purpose. In any case you'd see a adept-stalker-immortal gradient and all you'd need to do is have the adept and immortal far enough away from the stalker to have making each unit feasible under a given set of circumstances. On April 08 2015 03:44 Cyro wrote: I didn't pay particular attention there but i think roaches can just morph right away for 75 gas, a small mineral sink and 15 seconds or so of time
Oh... well in that case we can start with the upgrade just requiring a lair, and go from there.
OK so if we are generous and count modes that the unit naturally comes with (forgetting cloaked banshee and ghost, and burrowed zerg units) what we're still seeing is a ton of zerg transformations which on their own help zerg a lot in terms of unit composition and enhancing (on some level, in a given context) the zerg's ability to fight with existing units without spending more larvae.This is really quite a strong feature of the race and a necessary one for zerg.
How many times are we going to hear "He's going to need to get rid of some (or all) of these stalkers..."
With the new ultra armor I'd even go as far as to consider a super lategame transformation/ upgrade for marines (e.g. you know in starship troopers when Rico's assault rifle is switched into shotgun mode?)
Not necessarily. You don't really see immortals massed in the way stalkers are. Stalkers could still retain some of their maneuverability to contend with muta/viking/skytoss but be a general-purpose ranged unit like a not-retarded dragoon, while immortals retain their anti-armor purpose.
If its going to resemble the Dragoon more --> the Stalker will be better anti-armored --> Overlap more with Immortals. Blizzard intentionally made the Stalker weaker vs armored (than the Dragoon) in order to give the Immortal a role in the game.
Stalkers are very weak vs light though, they just have so low DPS. That shows up particularly vs marines and mutalisks, where if you're backed into a corner sentries are far superior fighters to stalkers due to their increased DPS (lol) and abilities.
Reading all these threads makes me want to get into the BETA, but then I remember that blizzard decided to add even more spells and abilities in the game, making it even more of a clickfest than it already was.
What's wrong with having some more space control units like the Siege Tank instead of spellcasters?
On April 09 2015 10:05 TT1 wrote: i just watched avilo crush parting after he fell behind in the early game..
Seriously ? avilo beat PartinG ? Patch needed.
In all seriousness PartinG lost a HotS game to RuFF one day he was trolling on the NA server, and anyway I'm pretty sure the cyclone and TvP in general will be one of the main focuses of the first batch of changes.
On April 09 2015 10:05 TT1 wrote: i just watched avilo crush parting after he fell behind in the early game..
Seriously ? avilo beat PartinG ? Patch needed.
In all seriousness PartinG lost a HotS game to RuFF one day he was trolling on the NA server, and anyway I'm pretty sure the cyclone and TvP in general will be one of the main focuses of the first batch of changes.
I didn't see Avilo vs PartinG but he lost pretty hard to Goswser yesterday and he wasn't trolling...PvZ is quite inbalanced in this period of the beta.
Not necessarily. You don't really see immortals massed in the way stalkers are. Stalkers could still retain some of their maneuverability to contend with muta/viking/skytoss but be a general-purpose ranged unit like a not-retarded dragoon, while immortals retain their anti-armor purpose.
If its going to resemble the Dragoon more --> the Stalker will be better anti-armored --> Overlap more with Immortals. Blizzard intentionally made the Stalker weaker vs armored (than the Dragoon) in order to give the Immortal a role in the game.
I meant less fragile and more of a core unit that can trade better against roaches or MMM.
On April 09 2015 10:05 TT1 wrote: i just watched avilo crush parting after he fell behind in the early game..
Seriously ? avilo beat PartinG ? Patch needed.
In all seriousness PartinG lost a HotS game to RuFF one day he was trolling on the NA server, and anyway I'm pretty sure the cyclone and TvP in general will be one of the main focuses of the first batch of changes.
ZvP seemed more imbalanced than TvP to me
cyclone is getting rekt though. Lock-on range probably, but i expect the conditions like being able to shoot when you have no vision to be removed. It's impossible to leave vs them after dropping. They'll just lock the medivac and it'll die.
Being able to jump into tall grass and break vision would be nice for gameplay
On April 09 2015 21:26 maartendq wrote: Reading all these threads makes me want to get into the BETA, but then I remember that blizzard decided to add even more spells and abilities in the game, making it even more of a clickfest than it already was.
What's wrong with having some more space control units like the Siege Tank instead of spellcasters?
It just rewards people with a better APM and better understanding of the game. You don't have to use the spells, lol.
On April 09 2015 21:26 maartendq wrote: Reading all these threads makes me want to get into the BETA, but then I remember that blizzard decided to add even more spells and abilities in the game, making it even more of a clickfest than it already was.
What's wrong with having some more space control units like the Siege Tank instead of spellcasters?
It just rewards people with a better APM and better understanding of the game. You don't have to use the spells, lol.
It's the concept they tried to do in HotS, done better.
Take Protoss for instance, where the goal was to weaken the deathball. Tempest was introduced because in theory you'd have to post them a little bit behind the deathball so they could use their full range without being easily picked down. Oracle had different abilities that weren't really conducive to WoL a-moves. Instead what happened was PvZ being oracles used to revelate corruptors, infestors, etc. and spot for Tempests, which where grouped with void rays/mothership for defense. APM still made skytoss a lot more effective for positioning/revelation, but not to the planned extent. And you still had a deathball, it just became a flying one in the lategame.
Now there's a lot more units with a lot more abilities. The thing about Revelation or the green beam whose name I forget is that you can turn them on and pull the Oracle back, or in the latter case do something else like macro at home or micro something else while the Oracle does its own thing. A unit like the Ravager, on the other hand, needs to be actively micro'd, Disruptors need to be manually pulled apart so they don't deal redundant damage, Cyclone needs to move with the target (this will be more prevalent when the unit is balanced better, so I can't make a good argument for this one yet). There's only so many things you can a-move. What this is trying to do is give people with higher APM a much bigger incentive to use that APM.
Speaking as someone who is very displeased with how blizzard has handled sc2. in general, I don't like the 12 starting workers, but even with that and some balance issues the game looks to be better than it has been in a long term in my point of veiw. I might buy this expansion even.
On April 09 2015 10:05 TT1 wrote: i just watched avilo crush parting after he fell behind in the early game..
Seriously ? avilo beat PartinG ? Patch needed.
In all seriousness PartinG lost a HotS game to RuFF one day he was trolling on the NA server, and anyway I'm pretty sure the cyclone and TvP in general will be one of the main focuses of the first batch of changes.
I didn't see Avilo vs PartinG but he lost pretty hard to Goswser yesterday and he wasn't trolling...PvZ is quite inbalanced in this period of the beta.
The Protoss have taken a lot of core nerfs without something substantial to compensate. Warpgate, Protoss' core army output, was nerfed. Colossus, the ground DPS backbone, was nerfed. MsC lost its midgame teeth. Sentry super useless. And, now, Protoss are forced to take more bases and are spread more thin.
The air buffs are nice but it seems like Protoss needs some core buffs. If the Zealot to Stalker interaction were better then PvP wouldn't be so constricted. If the Zealot to Zergling interaction weren't so bipolar there'd be better map control dynamics in ZvP. A slightly more mobile and slightly less sturdy Zealot would do better for the LotV meta.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CJUvfIA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oRBpkfa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5YMC8mm.jpg)
Ravager
![[image loading]](http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/20/19899/thumb_620x2000/siegedestroyer04.png)
I like that you thought about this, nice read.
