EPTmsc cant defend the early pushes if z rly push like crazy p is falling
LotV Beta - TL Strategy first impressions - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
msc cant defend the early pushes if z rly push like crazy p is falling | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
- 10 Workers to start. - 2k Gas - Add back about 1/2 the minerals on the lower patches. It's been fun to watch the streams (some great PvT with Carriers vs Battlecruisers at the 10 minute mark; 14ish previous timing), but it's likely the changes to the economy are a bit too much. You need a little room at the beginning. Also, on the "4 base mining is worthless" issue: they could just raise the Supply Cap to 220. | ||
|
ASoo
2862 Posts
| ||
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
| ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On April 05 2015 05:49 digmouse wrote: I would prefer keeping a relatively high starting worker count but keep the HotS resource count, 8-10 worker start maybe? I don't think it is realistic to expect Blizzard to change more fundamental things like mining speed tho. Under the current model expanding and macro doesn't feel like RTS "resource management", because you only want to expand fast, instead of expand smart and strategically. When expanding becomes a attempt at survival instead of actually "expanding" your economy, the game basically imbalances itself. From a less serious player's perspective: when a new season begins, I don't practice the maps before laddering. It's kind of frustrating as terran when there's some new weird way of walling in. Note, I don't have beta access, but I feel like there's even less time to figure things out. As Artosis does, I also value that down time. It's a bit relaxing and helps orient myself to my map position (one of four spawning locations); it gives me some time to think about building placement. In other words, I would also like them to try 8 or 10 workers to start the game. On the other hand, I do relish the idea of that first marine hunting down an overlord. | ||
|
Arvendilin
Germany1878 Posts
I think it is very good and hopefull that Blizzard is atleast willing to make such fundemental changes as the economic redesign of the game, its a positive sign and I hope they will keep trying to be adventurous with other changes in this long beta, so that we get the best possible end result! That said I do aggree in that I think the economic change is a bit problematic, first of all for the bases change, on this I 100% aggree it feels different from any StarCraft game I played ever b4 and while it does seem exciting RIGHT NOW (because it is something new and interesting) there will probably be a lot of drawbacks and entire ways to play the game that get canceled out. However there are a lot of ways to play around with that, what about if you layer it more, so that you slowly start to loose income, however this would in my opinion lead to too much complexity and unneeded and unwanted obscureness of the economy which would be a HUGE drawback! Or if you try and get the now make the difference not as big (right now you loose half your income in half the time, maybe make the reduced mineral patches 75% value or make fewer of the reduced one) however those two things feel like bandaids and I am not sure that it would help THAT much, it would be trying to make it less punishing while still making it punishing enough so that every player still feels inclined to expand, which might not address the root problem but would atleast make it a bit better (treat the symptoms not the cause basically) hopefully! In my mind the best way to go about this would be making expanding more rewarding (i.e. BW economy), you already have said why its better so I don't just want to repeat your words, but to be completely honest I kind of fear that Blizz isn't going to make such a big change to the game anymore since it would feel even bigger than the current economy change (eventhough it isn't THAT much bigger really to be competely honest), BUT I also didn't predict them making the SH patch during HotS lifetime or them making such a big change in the beta, so who knows I hope I can be proofen wrong! For the 12 worker start, while I still am on your side, I defenitely can see where Blizzard is coming from, for the casual player or the casual fan just watching some StarCraft at home, the first few minutes can be rather boring, the player player feels like nothing cool is happening and he is doing nothing really and the watcher feels like nothing is happening and doesn't understand the implications of even slightly varied builds! I think (and I put a lot of emphasis on the word THINK here because I don't know and would love to test it) that you could possibly find a starting amount between 7-10 workers (probably around 8) that would allow for enough diversity aswell as scouting, aswell as speed the game up and put more emphasis on units than on tech early on (which is actually a change that I like if it wasn't sooooo hardcore!), while at the same time cutting the downtime for spectators and casuals down by a bit and making it more fun to watch/play for them (because I know from some my friends that they get horribly bored at the start of every SC game I drag them too ;-; ) Okay the last part, and this is probably completely inappropriat to be here, so if it is please correct me and tell me and I will delete this part, is about a unit change I personally would love to see in LotV. We have already seen that Blizzard is willing to make changes as drastic as changing the entire economy of the game, and I do really like the new unit design (especially for Protoss if they tweak a few things), one thing that I would LOVE to see changed however is the forcefield, how? Remove it! Now I'm not balance whining here or doing any such stupid things, however I think that without the forcefields you could have much more variety in map design objectively a good thing. AND if we are going to assume for a second that the 12 worker economy change stays (or a slightly lesser version with like 10 or so workers), then that means that early on, energy units become way less usefull, this means the sentry and the mothership core will become way weaker which gives Protoss (as we can see) a lot of problems early on since those two units used to be their main defense line, the next thing this would do is make early unit output way more important, and to be completely frank, on their own Stalkers and Zealots just suck, also if the Disruptor stays roughly the way it is, it means that (without going airtoss) protoss will rely on a very heavy gateway unit main army, since the Disruptor costs unfathomable amounts of gas aswell as it beeing not THAT massable compared to the now useless collossus (something that I love since I really hated the collosus and the type of playstyle it lead to), however, as pointed out previously gateway units kinda suck, you also can't really buff them since they could become waaay too powerfull for early pushes with forcefield support especially against Terran. If you however take the Forcefields out, and already have nerfed warpgates (another big reason that gateway units had to be weaker), you could buff these units again, this would enable Protoss to play in the early and not get compeltely denied from taking a thirdbase and then starving/getting run over because now they could use their stronger economy to get out a lot of Tier I units that are actually competitive with the opponnent, it would also lead to Protoss beeing able to easier split off parts of their armies and let them be successfull in smaller engagements! I could ofcourse be completely wrong, however I still just wanted to give my opinion! I apologize for any writing mistakes I did make its very late over here aswell as english not beeing my first language, I hope you could follow my logic and that I contributed atleast somewhat to a discussion  Thanks again for doing this work! | ||
digmouse
China6326 Posts
| ||
|
PharaphobiaSC2
Czech Republic85 Posts
On April 05 2015 10:12 digmouse wrote: Protoss is frustrating as f*** to play right now, not a lot of viable options in almost every phase and gateway all-ins don't work at all vs Ravagers and Cyclones. Mean you can finally feel the pain of T and Z after the years of 7 gates and Immortal all ins ;o | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
On April 05 2015 07:54 ArrozConLeche wrote: One last comment I wanted to make is that, I know this is a game, an RTS genre to be exact and as such it should be about strategies and everything. However, this game is also an e-sport, if anyone out there wants it to actually be something related to a "sport", then you should be supporting blizzard's move to speed up the game, thus forcing people to become faster and faster with their hands Nothing wrong with the game being faster, and even BW did this artificially via things like limiting group unit numbers and the various weirdness an old game engine has. But there's a big difference between giving players choices and giving them requirements. Expanding in BW was a strategic choice, and a big one. Expanding in SC2 (both in HotS and Beta) is not one, as there is no added benefit for the risk of expanding more than 3 bases, other than you're required to keep 3 bases going. I think what most people want out of an RTS is the "easy to learn, hard to master" idea, where the "hard to master" comes from the correct balance of speed and strategy. As Dwf so eloquently points out, one begets the other. This is where BW, with all it's weird archaic behavior, shined. It's where (imho) SC2 has always fallen short. They are also quite different games (stylistically), and I think this latest economy change just shows how different they really are, and how SC2 has sort of designed itself into a corner that won't be easy to get out of. | ||
|
spacemonkeyy
Australia477 Posts
| ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On April 05 2015 11:17 spacemonkeyy wrote: Thanks for the 'Protoss' expansion Blizzard. That totally makes sense, because campaign is connected to the multiplayer. ... | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
On April 05 2015 10:12 digmouse wrote: gateway all-ins don't work at all That sentence makes me some happy no matter the context | ||
|
spacemonkeyy
Australia477 Posts
You introduce a really costly unit (same price as collosus) , built from the same place as collosus and is better than the collosus- then why nerf the collosus? Why get high templar when this unit has a clearly superior spell to storm? | ||
|
Magnifico
1958 Posts
I fear that the loudest voice will prefer ANYTHING over the "no protoss death ball". I dont think we should take that route. | ||
|
DMXD
United States4064 Posts
On April 05 2015 09:48 NKexquisite wrote: If bio is no longer viable vs ultralisks/lings in the late game, what have Terran players been doing? Do they have to somehow transition into mech for late game? Sounds bizarre since the upgrades would be reset by this transition. in bw, terran players sometimes play bio to put pressure on the zerg and then transition to mech. Don't know if it will work in sc2. Great articles as always and thedwf with great insights. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On April 05 2015 11:46 Tiaraju9 wrote: TL strategy guys and Thedwf are making very insightful points. I really wish that Blizzard is actually keeping the beta as a "anything can change" sort of thing. For instance, is Blizzard willing to revert the economy changes? I fear that the loudest voice will prefer ANYTHING over the "no protoss death ball". I dont think we should take that route. I hope Blizzard doesn't revert. I would like them to change it to something better, but if they remove it that would be dumb. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On April 05 2015 08:05 Whitewing wrote: In brood war, Flash was considered average to slow on APM, he was nowhere near the fastest player around, but he was the best, specifically because APM wasn't nearly as important as you think it is. And nobody wants ESPORTS to be exactly like sports, if you want that, just go outside and play soccer (football to non-Americans) If you load up any of the few replays available the eapm of flash is as high as jaedongs, with his apm being ~400. Him being slow is flat out wrong. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13379 Posts
On April 05 2015 12:10 blade55555 wrote: I hope Blizzard doesn't revert. I would like them to change it to something better, but if they remove it that would be dumb. You know I agree completely. I don't think either the LotV or HotS economy as they are now is how we should go  | ||
|
TiberiusAk
United States122 Posts
On April 05 2015 04:05 digmouse wrote: Agree on the expansion part, it feels very much unlike in BW or even HotS where you should be planning to expand to benefit from it, it actually feels rushy to expand just because you are 100% going to die if you do not. Thanks for such a thoughtful and detailed write up, TL strat team! I look forward to reading the next ones. Y'all are probably planning to address this in the first economy article, but: Do you think the issue quoted above could be addressed by adding back the removed 750 minerals to the 1500 mineral patches? (So bases would be half 750 minerals, and half 2250 mineral patches.) That would make the total resources per base the same as heart of the swarm, but still reward expansion with better mining efficiency. Phrasing the question another way: do slower-expanding players die because they mined out their entire main base (starvation), or because they mined out all the 750 mineral patches (lower income in general)? | ||
|
Jer99
Canada8157 Posts
| ||
| ||
