EPTWould be nice to hear their thoughts on how each economy plays out, instead of all the theorycrafting. Get's a little old when everyone sings the proposed changes praises, yet no ones actually tested it out vs the LotV econ and given feedback between the 2. Sure, the article made it sound like its better than the current 100/60% LotV econ on paper, but, has anyone actually seen it in practice?
LotV Balance Update Preview - April 27 - Page 13
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
Would be nice to hear their thoughts on how each economy plays out, instead of all the theorycrafting. Get's a little old when everyone sings the proposed changes praises, yet no ones actually tested it out vs the LotV econ and given feedback between the 2. Sure, the article made it sound like its better than the current 100/60% LotV econ on paper, but, has anyone actually seen it in practice? | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 29 2015 00:56 Ramiz1989 wrote: Oh come on, don't compare this to WC3. It's not like the game was completely different or something lol. WC3 also had a ton of stuff that didn't make much sense, from casters not getting the attack upgrades, to some units getting bonuses from melee upgrades when they are ranged and stuff like that. I don't know if realism is a good argument when siege tanks are upgraded in the armory and infantry in the engineering bay. The point is that for gameplay purposes air upgrades always come too late since you never want to upgrade air units early on, that's why you might decide to incorporate them into earlier generic upgrades. But at that point you're privileging either mech or bio, but you might not want to force air units to be partnered with either way. So you divide between weapons and plating. I don't know, I think it makes sense and it wouldn't be that weird. The tooltip could just say: "increases attack damage of all barracks and starport units" & "increases armor of all factory and starport units". | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Kruxxen
United States149 Posts
On April 29 2015 04:30 Afterhours wrote: Are there people who have actually played SC2 with the proposed Econ Change (DH, etc.) suggestion that everyone seems to be band-wagoning about? Have they also played in the LotV beta? Would be nice to hear their thoughts on how each economy plays out, instead of all the theorycrafting. Get's a little old when everyone sings the proposed changes praises, yet no ones actually tested it out vs the LotV econ and given feedback between the 2. Sure, the article made it sound like its better than the current 100/60% LotV econ on paper, but, has anyone actually seen it in practice? I've played over 200 games of LotV Beta, and about 20 with DH mod. LotV beta feels better than HotS but it also NEVER feels like you have a good economy. no matter how many command centers/bases you have it never seems like you have a solid income, and you still feel the need for another base. With Double Harvest you can get a good income going on a few bases, however your opponent can get a BETTER income going with additional bases. The difference is clear, LotV starves you out to the point that a solid income is practically unattainable, while double harvest gives you the opportunity to get a superior economy to your opponent. It feels obvious that double harvest is a better model. The reward/punish dynamic has been used repeatedly and probably seems like propaganda at this point, but play both and it makes perfect sense and really shows. LotV right now gives you no opportunity to add on production, because your extra money had better be going into new expansions rather than facilities you won't be able to afford in a couple minutes. Double harvest however allows you to actually power and produce units, while still having a focus on improving your economy with more bases. If I had to choose between Legacy economy and HotS economy I'd take Legacy every time. However I really hope we get the opportunity to try better models more thoroughly. Edit: I think I can count on my hands the number of games where I built more than 5 barracks, and actually had the money to produce off them all in Legacy of the void so far. Most times I regret building any more barracks because by the time they've finished building I wish I built another CC instead. | ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
On April 29 2015 05:34 Soldier92 wrote: I've played over 200 games of LotV Beta, and about 20 with DH mod. LotV beta feels better than HotS but it also NEVER feels like you have a good economy. no matter how many command centers/bases you have it never seems like you have a solid income, and you still feel the need for another base. With Double Harvest you can get a good income going on a few bases, however your opponent can get a BETTER income going with additional bases. The difference is clear, LotV starves you out to the point that a solid income is practically unattainable, while double harvest gives you the opportunity to get a superior economy to your opponent. It feels obvious that double harvest is a better model. The reward/punish dynamic has been used repeatedly and probably seems like propaganda at this point, but play both and it makes perfect sense and really shows. LotV right now gives you no opportunity to add on production, because your extra money had better be going into new expansions rather than facilities you won't be able to afford in a couple minutes. Double harvest however allows you to actually power and produce units, while still having a focus on improving your economy with more bases. If I had to choose between Legacy economy and HotS economy I'd take Legacy every time. However I really hope we get the opportunity to try better models more thoroughly. Edit: I think I can count on my hands the number of games where I built more than 5 barracks, and actually had the money to produce off them all in Legacy of the void so far. Most times I regret building any more barracks because by the time they've finished building I wish I built another CC instead. Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to hear, and would love more discussion centered around players experiences with both models. That being said, I will try to make a bigger effort of testing out DH econ as well, and relaying my experiences here. I would encourage any players who make it into the beta to give both changes a chance and really back up their posts with facts based on their games. Feel is everything here, and it would behoove us to articulate that to Blizzard in the best way possible. Again, thanks for the response! | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
General Mineral amounts changed from 100%/50% to 100%/60% Protoss Warp-in duration decreased from 8 to 5. Terran Reaper Added new ability. Toss a grenade which, after 2 seconds, causes 10 area of effect damage and knockback. Cooldown is 10 seconds. Cyclone Can no longer target air by default. New Upgrade: Surface to Air Targeting. Allows Cyclone to target air. Requires Fusion Core. Researched from Factory Tech Lab. Cost 100/100. Research time: 110. Unit radius increased from 0.625 to 0.75. Unit scale increased by 15%. Zerg Ravager Weapon period changed from 0.8 to 1.6. Weapon range reduced from 6 to 4. Swarm Host Cost changed to 200/100 and requires 3 supply. Flying locusts no longer requires research. Locust health down from 65 to 50. Swarm hosts can now move while burrowed. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18792770/legacy-of-the-void-beta-balance-update-april-28-2015-4-28-2015 Changes not in the balance blog are some more specifics about the Reaper ability (delay, damage, cooldown), plus a unit size change for the Cyclone. | ||
|
crown77
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On April 29 2015 07:05 Afterhours wrote: Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to hear, and would love more discussion centered around players experiences with both models. That being said, I will try to make a bigger effort of testing out DH econ as well, and relaying my experiences here. I would encourage any players who make it into the beta to give both changes a chance and really back up their posts with facts based on their games. Feel is everything here, and it would behoove us to articulate that to Blizzard in the best way possible. Again, thanks for the response! THANK YOU BOTH! While units should have adjustments it still baffles me why economy isn't discussed more. If I had access to the Lotv beta... I would be in there testing it out for sure! @Bacon infinity, I was really happy you did the show match to test out the Double Harvest economy. Please do more show matches with pros so we can see how it plays out. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On April 29 2015 07:43 eviltomahawk wrote: Patch notes are up http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18792770/legacy-of-the-void-beta-balance-update-april-28-2015-4-28-2015 Changes not in the balance blog are some more specifics about the Reaper ability (delay, damage, cooldown), plus a unit size change for the Cyclone. Nice, I was expecting 10-15 damage at most for Reaper Grenades and I like it and also like the delay. Only thing I really dislike is 10 seconds cooldown as it's the same cooldown of Ravager's Corrosive Bile and I think it's too spammable. 15-20 seconds feels far more appropriate but we will see. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 29 2015 07:05 Afterhours wrote: Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to hear, and would love more discussion centered around players experiences with both models. That being said, I will try to make a bigger effort of testing out DH econ as well, and relaying my experiences here. I would encourage any players who make it into the beta to give both changes a chance and really back up their posts with facts based on their games. Feel is everything here, and it would behoove us to articulate that to Blizzard in the best way possible. Again, thanks for the response! I've played a few games with DH10, not enough to give a super informed opinion, but anyway I felt that up until 3 bases, everything feels more or less the same (some early game timings shifted but we all knew that). It's like after both players remax for the first time the player with 1 or 2 more bases gets a lot stronger than they would be in hots. But before that it doesn't really feel different to me, maybe someone else has different experience. I haven't played beta but if DK speaks the truth I should have it to play this weekend. The more I watch games and the conversations unfold the less convinced I am that each model is actually addressing the same issue. My impressions at this point are that whatever Blizzard decides to do with their FRB model, removing worker pairing within that model can only be a good thing. DH10 isn't there to prove that it's the best and only way forward, it's there to prove that worker pairing restricts strategic choice, and I think it does that. I would actually like to play lotv with DH10 and see what that feels like. Because DH10 is so subtle, it might complement their model really well. | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On April 29 2015 07:05 Afterhours wrote: Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to hear, and would love more discussion centered around players experiences with both models. That being said, I will try to make a bigger effort of testing out DH econ as well, and relaying my experiences here. I would encourage any players who make it into the beta to give both changes a chance and really back up their posts with facts based on their games. Feel is everything here, and it would behoove us to articulate that to Blizzard in the best way possible. Again, thanks for the response! Well, since you're interested in game experience I have like 200+ wins or something in LotV beta as protoss. I can certainly say that this economy model they have is bad. That's all you have to say. It's horrendous for protoss. You either seem to have no mineral, or no gas, and the fact that you have spread out earlier is horrendous. vs players with great mechanics it will only be worse. Now, what ever economy model you want to propose instead of this model I already go in favor of simply because the lotv model is clearly not the one we should be using. Unless you can somehow make a worse economy model, which at the very least, we know DH is not.... then @_@;;;;;;; they should at least try it. Honestly makes the beta not very fun/even worth playing/testing atm as toss | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 28 2015 20:32 Lomo wrote: Im not a fan of splitting air/ground upgrades. If you want to go a air/mech mix u have to build 3-4 armorys, even with that you cant keep up with chrono boost and both is really gas heavy. I still dont get the Cyclone, he becames totally useless in late game. Why we cant remove the Cyclone and get a ground Mech unit that is good vs Massive Air (Carrier etc.)? If you opponent choose to make a Massive Air composition you can only build Vikings,Vikings and more Vikings. There is not a single alternative for Mech players and now the Vikings will have no upgrades -_-! I´m a Terran and i hate the Cyclone really! Cyclones are far better at killing Carriers than Vikings in a direct engagement, there's little incentive to use vikings over carriers with the exception of maneuverability. You may have had a bad experience with them, but your extrapolation to how they are used generally is just silly. I still maintain removing GtA attack is a terrible choice. Instead, it would be much nicer just to heavily decrease the lock on range so it requires the cyclone to actually follow the opponent's unit if it tries to retreat, increasing micro potential as the other player can do things to block it. This would also let phoenix/oracles who get in the range of the lock on escape, but also keep proxy oracles and shit like that away. Just reintroduce the increased lock on range with an upgrade at the factory. On April 28 2015 16:08 Hider wrote: I think Vikings could just get much faster transfomation for free (no upgrade needed). For Hellion/hellbats, the damage of the latter vs light must be reduced. Otherwise there is no reward of Speedlings surrounding Hellions, and I actually prefer the role of Hellbats being better vs armored than light. Imagine the following microinteraction: --> You run up to an enemy armored unit with the Hellion --> Transform into Hellbat --> Kills the enemy armored unit if it isn't microed --> If the enemy is skilled, he micro's it back. --> Hellbats are re-transformed into Hellions and chases the enemy armored unit once again... etc. Well consider that it would be an upgrade you need to tech to. It's not as if right now transforming is viable at all. Keep in mind there would still be a transformation time in which the lings would be damaging the hellbats. Honestly, if it still proved too strong, you could just make it so the transformation from Hellbat back to Hellion is faster to allow them to escape. On April 29 2015 04:42 Tenks wrote: I also wish Blizzard increased the attack priority of unburrowed Lurkers. They are pretty much ignored. Please do NOT change this! This is an awesome feature. In fact, I wish they would add it to HT, Infestors, and other "attack-less" spellcasters/units. It heavily promotes micro. You want to take out the unit? Manually attack it. BW worked this way, and it was GREAT! | ||
|
Supersamu
Germany296 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/481156-tl-terran-unit-comp-voting?page=11#211 Not too similar, but it is the thought that counts. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
On April 28 2015 19:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote: All this sounds really nice to me. Vikings in general feel like a missed opportunity to me, it's like... its landed form is almost so bad that it's like giving your opponent minerals via direct transfer, and then it's gonna take forever to transform back... Wish they would shorten its range, make it waaaaaay more maneuverable and maybe remove the armored tag when its landed. Could give it a fusion core upgrade that extends the range back up for later in the game. I would love to see a "goliath mode" for vikings. When vikings land, they should retain their AA capabilities, like a goliath. Also, allow vikings in "goliath mode" to be produced out of factories, but they can only transform when starport tech is built. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 29 2015 16:38 Loccstana wrote: I would love to see a "goliath mode" for vikings. When vikings land, they should retain their AA capabilities, like a goliath. Also, allow vikings in "goliath mode" to be produced out of factories, but they can only transform when starport tech is built. That would be so broken | ||
|
dust7
199 Posts
For example, there is zero chance for units that are in the beta right now being removed again. With the exception of the terran unit to come, they decided on the set of units before the beta (when they actually removed the herc). SH, Tempest, Thor, etc. will stay. There is also zero chance for community inspired changes to units and abilities at this point because those are not playing it safe enough. In years of reading TL I saw nobody suggesting another high range unit from the starport or more armor for the ultralisk. Community participation in the design of the new terran unit is an illusion. There is zero chance for a redesign of warpgates and zero chance for any economic model that is much different from the current one. It hurts so much to witness the last Starcraft there will ever be to become a pretty good game when it could have become a timeless classic. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3441 Posts
We saw this was an issue with Corruptors at a time where they had energy and Zergs most staple anti air unit, simply got countered by High Templars. I wonder if they should just make Feedback only deal damage to Feedbacked Psionic Units or if it's actually by design that they want all these abilities that if you have spare apm, you can use it more and it helps you out a little. I'd like that there at least would be a little bit of a decision element in using said abilities. | ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
On April 29 2015 19:38 dust7 wrote: Blizzard is playing this too safe. They said the Beta would be long and a time of massive changes and experimentation, but all I see is minor tweaks. They have already entered the stage of trying to find the "correct place" for now predetermined units, their abilities, the economy and other major game aspects (like warpgate). For example, there is zero chance for units that are in the beta right now being removed again. With the exception of the terran unit to come, they decided on the set of units before the beta (when they actually removed the herc). SH, Tempest, Thor, etc. will stay. There is also zero chance for community inspired changes to units and abilities at this point because those are not playing it safe enough. In years of reading TL I saw nobody suggesting another high range unit from the starport or more armor for the ultralisk. Community participation in the design of the new terran unit is an illusion. There is zero chance for a redesign of warpgates and zero chance for any economic model that is much different from the current one. It hurts so much to witness the last Starcraft there will ever be to become a pretty good game when it could have become a timeless classic. QFT Lets hope Blizz will be more daring. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On April 29 2015 19:38 dust7 wrote: Blizzard is playing this too safe. They said the Beta would be long and a time of massive changes and experimentation, but all I see is minor tweaks. They have already entered the stage of trying to find the "correct place" for now predetermined units, their abilities, the economy and other major game aspects (like warpgate). For example, there is zero chance for units that are in the beta right now being removed again. With the exception of the terran unit to come, they decided on the set of units before the beta (when they actually removed the herc). SH, Tempest, Thor, etc. will stay. There is also zero chance for community inspired changes to units and abilities at this point because those are not playing it safe enough. In years of reading TL I saw nobody suggesting another high range unit from the starport or more armor for the ultralisk. Community participation in the design of the new terran unit is an illusion. There is zero chance for a redesign of warpgates and zero chance for any economic model that is much different from the current one. It hurts so much to witness the last Starcraft there will ever be to become a pretty good game when it could have become a timeless classic. Lol. You don't know that there is zero chance and frankly, you're talking out of your butthole. | ||
| ||
