On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0
So i entirely agree with you.
Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen.
Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong.
As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound?
Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions.
Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here.
this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
To be fair, the push for tempest doesn't exactly speak highly of the dev team either. And had I the choice, I'd rather they test out even one economic mechanism change rather than trying to cram in disintegration.
Then again, I'd agree to a lot of changes to the opportunity cost of disintegration.
On April 16 2015 08:15 Spect8rCraft wrote: To be fair, the push for tempest doesn't exactly speak highly of the dev team either. And had I the choice, I'd rather they test out even one economic mechanism change rather than trying to cram in disintegration.
Then again, I'd agree to a lot of changes to the opportunity cost of disintegration.
I'd probably really like it as an ability if it was reduced to something like 120 damage and given a moderately brief cooldown. That having been said, I'm not a huge fan of the Tempest as a whole, regardless of disintegration. The Carrier is just so much more interesting as a capital ship. I'd like to see the Tempest slightly redesigned as more of a dedicated artillery unit, or moved to be similar to its iteration in the HotS alpha, where it was designed to be a counter to mass Mutalisks, a problem that Protoss are currently facing int he LotV beta, with the introduction of Parasitic Bomb. Tempests with splash demoed here:
People have a sentimental soft-spot for the BW units. They brought back the Lurker for Zerg, and everyone was happy about that.
If Blizz was smart, they would find a way to bring back one of the core units for Protoss and Terran. Imagine how much more excited players would be if the Goliath and Reaver made it back for LOTV? If they made the lurker work in SC2 they can make these units work too.
On April 16 2015 03:12 cheekymonkey wrote: Its funny how most people are positive towards each change, but negative overall.
LOTV is Obamacare in space?
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Look at the DotA model. Respect a great platform and tweak it.
And a slightly more accessible touched up BW would do work on the multiplayer level. How many westerners really played the multiplayer?
they did adjust the damage point, but i wish they had mentioned it in the first post. i was frustrated when i did not see any mention of it, then was relieved when i read it in these notes. they still didn't talk about it...
for someone who doesnt have a beta key...could anyone give a brief statement whats not looking good in the beta and why is everybody talking about the economy? is this 12worker thing not doing good for the game?
On April 16 2015 19:30 Terence Chill wrote: for someone who doesnt have a beta key...could anyone give a brief statement whats not looking good in the beta and why is everybody talking about the economy? is this 12worker thing not doing good for the game?
Protoss = Fucked. Ravager = Too strong (but maybe that can be fixed by buffing protoss?) Cyclone = Insane range and damage. Can't be attacked in the proces. Very OP.
Economy =/ 12 starting workers.
Economy = You mine out much faster.
This means you have to constantly take bases at a faster rate. In BW on the other hand: You didn't mine out faster but if you took extra bases you had more income than someone with less bases. This meant you could have a higher income than someone with on fewer bases --> you could armytrade efficiently more easy (even without being cost efficient). Hence the economy created an addiitonal counter to turtling than just cost efficieny.
In LOTV you just constantly take bases and everyone is super mobile. You can't stay on fewer bases with an immobile defensive composition as in BW --> Results in less diversity and a feeling of constantly being in the midgame.
The question is ofc whether a defensive (and perhaps semi-turtly) midgame style should be viable or whether the game should be all about constant action with mobile armies in the midgame?
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
To be honest, I think the 200 supply cap is a very artificial and arbitrary limitation on the game. There is no cap on how many buildings or defensive structures you can build, so why should there be one for units?
It is the main reason why we see late game deathball/stalemate situation with each side banking thousands of resources and maxed out armies yet afraid to engage in each other or commit to decisive battles. This is because when both players are maxed out and have equivalent quality of army compositions, it becomes very hard to exploit economical advantages to gain an advantage and overwhelm the enemy through superior numbers. Similarly, it is also hard to attain superiority in army composition since each new unit your produce has to replace some other unit you have.
If there no supply cap, we would actually see interesting battles where small amounts of high tech expensive fight against hordes of cheap low tech units. Also, it would make enemy death balls impractical since you have both the supply to defend against it yet and also counter attack/harass the enemy's base. A player would have wider set of strategic options to counter how his opponent plays.
Blizzard should experiment with removing the supply cap and simply make supply depots/pylons/overlords give steadily less supply as more are built. For example, after building 20 supply depots, a new supply depot gives 6 supply. After 40, new supply depot gives 4 supply and so on.
This way, the supply of both the player and his opponent is ultimately determined through their strategic and tactical interactions (build order, economy, battles, etc) as well as the amount of resources of the map. Of course, Blizzard needs to adjust macro mechanics like larva inject for balancing reasons.
TLDR: Supply caps are bad for the game because they encourage deathballs and stalemate situations and limit the strategic depth of the game.
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
To be honest, I think the 200 supply cap is a very artificial and arbitrary limitation on the game. There is no cap on how many buildings or defensive structures you can build, so why should there be one for units?
It is the main reason why we see late game deathball/stalemate situation with each side banking thousands of resources and maxed out armies yet afraid to engage in each other or commit to decisive battles. This is because when both players are maxed out and have equivalent quality of army compositions, it becomes very hard to exploit economical advantages to gain an advantage and overwhelm the enemy through superior numbers. Similarly, it is also hard to attain superiority in army composition since each new unit your produce has to replace some other unit you have.
If there no supply cap, we would actually see interesting battles where small amounts of high tech expensive fight against hordes of cheap low tech units. Also, it would make enemy death balls impractical since you have both the supply to defend against it yet and also counter attack/harass the enemy's base. A player would have wider set of strategic options to counter how his opponent plays.
Blizzard should experiment with removing the supply cap and simply make supply depots/pylons/overlords give steadily less supply as more are built. For example, after building 20 supply depots, a new supply depot gives 6 supply. After 40, new supply depot gives 4 supply and so on.
This way, the supply of both the player and his opponent is ultimately determined through their strategic and tactical interactions (build order, economy, battles, etc) as well as the amount of resources of the map. Of course, Blizzard needs to adjust macro mechanics like larva inject for balancing reasons.
TLDR: Supply caps are bad for the game because they encourage deathballs and stalemate situations and limit the strategic depth of the game.
A supply cap isn't so much a problem (and it needs to be there considering computers start dying when you try to make too many units), the problem is that the cap of 200 is very outdated at this point. The cap is reached insanely fast and, as you say, at that point there is not a lot you can do to capitalize on an economic advantage, since you can't produce more units.
They should either raise the cap, do something to make reaching 200 supply take a lot longer.
They fixed the lag that was very noticeable when controlling protoss units. For example if you tried to issue a move command right after a spell cast on an adept or stalker they would not blink or send their shade out. However, it seems as if that has been fixed and the units are more responsive in that manner once again.
The upgrade on the adept is actually pretty nice I think. It helps the unit fulfill a greater role in the late game and still offers it good end game harassment options. The only grudge I have with it is that it is 100 second upgrade. Considering DT shrine is only 71 seconds now I feel like this upgrade should be a little bit lower since it is only a 100/100 upgrade. Maybe 85 or 80?
Lastly, why are all of the unit movement speeds completely changed? I am pretty sure a lot of them are just arbitrarily changed for LotV and perhaps the timer in game change; but seriously, I am 100% positive the zealot has been nerfed.
On April 15 2015 05:58 MrMatt wrote: I was hoping for at least a mention of all the economy discussion happening lately.
Some have a hard time to adapt to the changes after years of classic SC2 economy, so within two weeks they rather criticise the Lotv economy which was internally tested for many weeks/months at Blizzard, because that company just don't know how to make good games.
EPT
