EPTThis way protoss can defend their expansions.
LotV Balance Update Now Live (April 15) - Page 11
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Squallify
1 Post
This way protoss can defend their expansions. | ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ? | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
On April 15 2015 23:27 Ragnarork wrote: I'm really annoyed by this stance that Blizzard currently have, where they try to force units to fit roles/to be used like they would like to... I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ? Yeah. Give us an interesting set of units and let's see what comes out of that, not a set of strats you'd like to see "because they're cool yeah lasers and action everywhere !!!!". | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 15 2015 23:11 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc) I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh. I fear they won't and don't want to. I guess they have every right for that because it is their game and their design. But since the LotV announcement I'm not so sure that I will be part of this community after the expansion anymore. | ||
|
HallofPain4444
Japan71 Posts
On April 15 2015 22:43 TheDwf wrote: Alas no, he probably deeply loves the race. And that is Protoss' greatest tragedy. That's some EPIC sarcasm,  I double that. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 15 2015 23:42 Big J wrote: I fear they won't and don't want to. I guess they have every right for that because it is their game and their design. But since the LotV announcement I'm not so sure that I will be part of this community after the expansion anymore. So you are saying that you are only part of the sc2 community cause you thought LOTV would be the savior of sc2? I actually think no matter what, it will be enjoyable in the end, there will be stuff i disagree with (just like right now), but that's just how it is. I would love if they at least tried another economy system (let's be real, the LOTV economy is a map change), but i think even with that change the end result will be enjoyable to watch (and play) | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On April 15 2015 23:11 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc) I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh. Why can't we have both? Why can't we have efficiency vs efficiency gameplay as well gameplay where one player is clearly playing a defensive positional game? Variety is good. And it isn't race specific. Ideally, Terran could go for Bio and be less strong in a straight up fight and less efficient, but more mobile, and therefore be able to expand and harass more. Zerg would be similar with Ling/Muta or Protoss with Gateway/Stargate compositions. But Terran Mech, Zerg Roach/Hydra/Ravager (Swarmhosts in HOTS), and Protoss Robotics Facility death balls would be the slow moving armies that are really efficient and strong in straight up fights, but lack mobility. Due to a lack of mobility the latter compositions would naturally expand slower and play more defensively. We could have both. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 16 2015 00:01 The_Red_Viper wrote: So you are saying that you are only part of the sc2 community cause you thought LOTV would be the savior of sc2? I actually think no matter what, it will be enjoyable in the end, there will be stuff i disagree with (just like right now), but that's just how it is. I would love if they at least tried another economy system (let's be real, the LOTV economy is a map change), but i think even with that change the end result will be enjoyable to watch (and play) Nonono, that's not what I'm saying. I'm greatly enjoying SC2 as it is now, even though they should have fixed ZvZ in 2013. I'm saying I'm not sure I will enjoy LotV, because it destroys the game I have grown to like, but doesn't rebuild it in the way I would like it to change. In many parts rather the opposite. Flying tanks, Swarm Hosts that don't siege but run around. Increasing hardcounter relations on units such as ultralisks while the unit remains garbage if my opponent just sits behind a wall. Introducing more units instead of fixing the ones we have. Keeping Protoss design bullshit, even though they nerf a lot of things, they eventually will have to find balance for protoss. And they eventually will want to see their units being used. And if they keep the forcefield, and they want to see the sentry being used, you know what that means... yeah, forcefields will exist. Or their unit design will be crappy. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient? Can we even afford 250 supply of units with the new economy? | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient? dude I almost never get to 200 with the new economy, so please | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On April 16 2015 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: They admit that the Tempest doesn't seem to have a role. What with Protoss having the greatest variety of units, abilities and openers, unit compositions, why don't they just remove the unit already? Tempest is basically an unwanted unit from the start of HoTS. I've been railing against the Tempest since... it's introduction back before (yes, I bolded and italicized that, nearly underlined it too) the HOTS Beta was released. At the time, it filled an unneeded role (anti-mutalisk hard counter, when Mutalisks had been solved by Blink/Storm) but then was changed to do exactly the same role as the Carrier... long range capital ship. Why didn't they just fix the Carrier? Now the Carrier is fixed, we see how this unit has no role again. The Carrier does everything it can do, but better. Blizzard creates more problems than it solves when it just leaves things unfixed. You want to create a new Stargate unit? Great, but first fix the ones we got that no one ever uses, which would be the equivalent of giving us a new unit. Otherwise you might just pull a Browder and create a unit for a role that has already been filled. And now we are left in this mess. This highlights the problem with the design team. They are clueless. They have no long term planning about what they want SC2 to become or how they can meaningfully add to it, and their unit ideas often are the result of some temporary swing in the meta (read Tempest). | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
| ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
| ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
On April 15 2015 23:27 Ragnarork wrote: I'm really annoyed by this stance that Blizzard currently have, where they try to force units to fit roles/to be used like they would like to... I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ? This is a really odd stance on the issue. There's good reason to want immortal drops, as it's 1) interesting to watch 2) highly variable outcome and 3) extremely dependent on skill. Blizzard has very good reasons to want these things to be viable. | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
| ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On April 16 2015 00:25 NonY wrote: I was hoping for another radical change to the economy. I was hoping that they had several possible directions the economy could go and they'd have the beta testers try them all. Maybe that's still true and they need more time to look at the current one. The problem is the game is so wildly imbalanced at the moment it is hard to really tell what the eco changes are affecting | ||
| ||
