On April 28 2015 05:15 Grumbels wrote: Blizzard should have the energize pylons from Starbow for protoss, which makes them shield batteries. Instantly fixes all protoss defensive issues (maybe). And chronoboost on photon cannons, but with removal of photon overcharge. And keep the warpgate nerf.
The first idea is cool.
The second idea sounds devastating with cannon rushes.
Why not just scale the immortal down and move it to gateway?
O_O. Never in a million years would I have imagined a zerg suggesting warp in immortals.
The idea is to make the Immortal act like the Dragoon that the Protoss race desperately needs (the Adept is bound to become a fiasco). It's indeed incompatible with Warpgate at Core tech + 120-160s, but it's more than time to delay Warpgate until at least the beginning of midgame. (Ideally, Protoss players should have the decision to play with or without.)
On April 28 2015 05:15 Grumbels wrote: Blizzard should have the energize pylons from Starbow for protoss, which makes them shield batteries. Instantly fixes all protoss defensive issues (maybe). And chronoboost on photon cannons, but with removal of photon overcharge. And keep the warpgate nerf.
The first idea is cool.
The second idea sounds devastating with cannon rushes.
Why not just scale the immortal down and move it to gateway?
O_O. Never in a million years would I have imagined a zerg suggesting warp in immortals.
Well...I also support bringing the hydra down to hatch tech with similarly nerfed stats xD
But really, maybe a potential idea for warp gate is only being able to warp in certain units.
Zealot, Stalkers, DTs, and Adepts can be warped in, but everything can be produced from gateways.
Immortals, HTs, and sentries have to traverse the map or be transported via a warp prism. Additonally, if HTs were only from gateways maybe they could bring back Khaydarin Amulet to compensate.
Those are some of my thoughts on this. I still hate Disruptors and I'm convinced in their current form they are way too powerful in PvZ, hopefully the nerfs to the Ravagers help stabilize the match up more so that more games actually go far enough for Protoss to use them so everyone else can see what I'm seeing.
I actually hate the Disruptor balance too. It fits a campaign unit, but right now it's simply too hardcountering.
Disruptor is designed to 1-shot things, and it's like 50% like a baneling. Get a good hit or shit, since it becomes very exposed after firing, so it has to be balanced on big damage or it wouldn't be built at all.
I think that the Disruptor should become some kind of baneling (relatively disposeable) without hardcountering too much ground units, or be fused with the Reaver Design. We could combine Reaver design (building expensive projectiles) with the micro aspect of the disruptor, which is quite nice, and get a unit that doesn't 1-shot things because otherwise it would be unplayable since it would get cost innefficent.
The micro concept is really good, but not at "terrible terrible damage/ high risk and cost/ money shot" design.
I think that by combining the micro design of Disruptors, with the "ammo builder" at cost concept of the Reaver, we could get some improved design, some kind of "baneling launcher" that would be close to the Reaver but with full micro control, and far easier to balance.
It's funny how Blizzard wants to share meaningless details about rejected unit designs that honestly just make them look like they don't know what they're doing. My university professor told me this: when you write a report don't turn it into a travel blog about all the different paths you took to get to the destination.
On April 28 2015 05:38 Bazik wrote: So now will be going form a few ravagers each game to 0 against most a a couple maybe vs Protoss, talking about bad changes, now it really feels like a true Zerg unit, extremely overpriced, while not adding anything in most situations.
If you want individually better units, reduce the amount of larvae available. Other races will have to follow the movement and the game will only be better at the end.
Why not just scale the immortal down and move it to gateway?
Or reduce Robotics cost (and perhaps - if needed - increase Robo Bay cost to make tier 3 cost unchanged) --> Similar effect as you can get 2-3 Robotics in the early part of the midgame --> Immortals can now be produced easier and you avoid the whole extra complication of needing seperate hotkeys for some of your Gateways.
I actually hate the Disruptor balance too. It fits a campaign unit, but right now it's simply too hardcountering.
Disruptor = The opposite of a hardcounter as it comes down to micro.
It's funny how Blizzard wants to share meaningless details about rejected unit designs that honestly just make them look like they don't know what they're doing. My university professor told me this: when you write a report don't turn it into a travel blog about all the different paths you took to get to the destination.
I dont get what Blizz and DK are going to accomplish with this new flying AA unit... People only mass air units in TvZ and there we got widow mines and the Thor. We don't need another AA unit. We need a well designed unit with new mechanics.
It's funny how Blizzard wants to share meaningless details about rejected unit designs that honestly just make them look like they don't know what they're doing. My university professor told me this: when you write a report don't turn it into a travel blog about all the different paths you took to get to the destination.
I dont get what Blizz and DK are going to accomplish with this new flying AA unit...
(1) Pick an arbitrary rule: “add two units per race”. (2) Realize the race has no need/room for such a thing. (3) Apply anyway.
On April 28 2015 05:41 Hider wrote: Disruptor = The opposite of a hardcounter as it comes down to micro.
No, not really because it is faster than a lot of ground units when purification nova is activated and you simply can't split fast enough. Or when few Disruptors charges into you together with 120+ Supply of Protoss army and you are trying to split your units because Disruptors will kill them all if you don't, and while you are doing that Protoss death ball is wiping the floor with you.
The whole "I am doing massive AoE damage while being faster than your units and being immune to everything" is horrendous design.
On April 28 2015 05:15 Grumbels wrote: Blizzard should have the energize pylons from Starbow for protoss, which makes them shield batteries. Instantly fixes all protoss defensive issues (maybe). And chronoboost on photon cannons, but with removal of photon overcharge. And keep the warpgate nerf.
You know, one thought I had was to give sentries a shield battery ability. Balancing would be required, but I think it would fix the issues with gateway units. It would be like a medic for protoss.
It's funny how Blizzard wants to share meaningless details about rejected unit designs that honestly just make them look like they don't know what they're doing. My university professor told me this: when you write a report don't turn it into a travel blog about all the different paths you took to get to the destination.
I dont get what Blizz and DK are going to accomplish with this new flying AA unit...
(1) Pick an arbitrary rule: “add two units per race”. (2) Realize the race has no need/room for such a thing. (3) Apply anyway.
Because it's a marketing tool. New expansion new units is a lot more attractive to the general public then fixed units. Look how much they are trying to find a place for the stupid SH instead of removing it.
EDIT: just look at the cluster fuck that is the factory. Hellion, Hellbats, Mines, Cyclones, doing the same thing that only one unit was able to do in BW. They have no concept of elegance and depth when making units.
On April 28 2015 05:15 Grumbels wrote: Blizzard should have the energize pylons from Starbow for protoss, which makes them shield batteries. Instantly fixes all protoss defensive issues (maybe). And chronoboost on photon cannons, but with removal of photon overcharge. And keep the warpgate nerf.
The first idea is cool.
The second idea sounds devastating with cannon rushes.
Why not just scale the immortal down and move it to gateway?
O_O. Never in a million years would I have imagined a zerg suggesting warp in immortals.
Well...I also support bringing the hydra down to hatch tech with similarly nerfed stats xD
But really, maybe a potential idea for warp gate is only being able to warp in certain units.
Zealot, Stalkers, DTs, and Adepts can be warped in, but everything can be produced from gateways.
Immortals, HTs, and sentries have to traverse the map or be transported via a warp prism. Additonally, if HTs were only from gateways maybe they could bring back Khaydarin Amulet to compensate.
Well, IMAO there are few things to get done with design, specially design of intended Core units.
Adept needs to be a decent fighter, not a shit that spends almost 5 s to kill a Zergling or almost 7s (in HotS time values) to kill a marine with shields. DPS isn't all. Instead of balancing it to be a clunky infantry that moves slow, shots as slow as a siege unit and is a meatshield better than Zealots, I'd rebalance it much more like a Marauder. Old HP values, relatively high DPS output, mid-short weapon cooldown, and with 5 range and more mobile. Infantry. For example, a 10+8vs light with 1.5 CD it would be only 20% better in terms of DPS, but would kill Zerglings and Marines 50% faster (always 2-shot zerglings and 3 shot marines no matter if combat shields is reasearched, except if armor upgrades are rushed). That would make the unit much more core, and then we could focus in the dedicated upgrade for it.
Immortals IMAO are quite well positioned in Robo. They were simply too "heroic" as they were extremely efficient hardcounters with their old passive. Right now, it would make sense to have them a bit tuned down in damage, slightly reworked and get a big cost reduction, moving to 150/100 or 200/100 at max with reduced build time, and bring back the alpha range upgrade (range up to 7). Immos would feel really strong, being a ground supperiority fighter, and possibly used as core army. Maybe it's time to have a very cost efficient unit by itself with general use. Dragoons were quite decent all-around units. Stalkers are also quite all-around, extremely mobile and micro dependant, but struggle in terms of DPS. Immortals could take that old Dragoon role and empower it, acting as strong DPS and being relatively masseable.
I also think that Hydras are placed in a correct tech level, since early game they would be very destructive, specially vs protoss, and early Lair lurker timings could be devastating. Their problem is that they get outclassed very easily. Too strong to be Hatch, decent at early lair timing, pure shit after few minutes.Hydras are still shit after 5 years. They are balanced to be early/early-midgame units, but get trashed in the lategame by AoE damage or abilities to zone them out since they aren't cost efficient by themselves as the game moves on, and have no fancy micro to revamp them like Stalkers or have efficiency upgrades like marines or marauders. IMAO, the Hydralisk problem is solved by giving them 6 as default range, and providing them a good upgrade to keep them usable in the later game, like an HP buff or Frienzy. Campaign upgrades are a good reference. Hydraliks needs upgrades to give them more later utility, specially considering that any kind of efficient infantry (Bio, Adepts) and any form of AoE damage trashes them since they are very fragile and relatively slow.
On April 28 2015 06:04 Sapphire.lux wrote:
EDIT: just look at the cluster fuck that is the factory. Hellion, Hellbats, Mines, Cyclones, doing the same thing that only one unit was able to do in BW. They have no concept of elegance and depth when making units.
We'll, I'd say that Hellion/Hellbat and Widow mines actually split the roles of Firebats and Vultures, so that makes 2 units, and reworks a bit their roles, since Widow Mines can target air. So it's 3 units reworking the role of 2.
Cyclone has nothing to do with Vultures BTW. It's a tanky, kiting unit, that allows you to deal sustained DPS without getting in range of most units and very strong vs all kind of units, flyiers and ground ones, which is the opposite of Vulture's attack. The only thing they have in common is that they are relatively mobile and reward micro-intensive plays.
On April 28 2015 06:09 MrMatt wrote: They should make cyclone have a zone of attack. If you can micro closer or further than that area it loses its lock on.
Yes Terran needs an air based AOE unit that can be micro'd against phoenix and muta. Phoenix has a speed of 4.25, mutalisk has a speed of 4, viking has a speed of 2.75 (lol). The viking is a terribly designed unit and should just be replaced.
The Thor anti air should be removed. Instead of having to upgrade an air attack for cyclone (this would be like making mutalisk require an upgrade to shoot ground units, it's just dumb), just get rid of locking on air units and replace with a decent single target air attack, which requires the cyclone to be stationary, so cyclones have to be stutter stepped to shoot air.
Mech and air upgrade should probably be split, best to keep combined armor for mech and air, but split air attack and mech attack.
On April 28 2015 05:15 Grumbels wrote: Blizzard should have the energize pylons from Starbow for protoss, which makes them shield batteries. Instantly fixes all protoss defensive issues (maybe). And chronoboost on photon cannons, but with removal of photon overcharge. And keep the warpgate nerf.
The first idea is cool.
The second idea sounds devastating with cannon rushes.
Why not just scale the immortal down and move it to gateway?
O_O. Never in a million years would I have imagined a zerg suggesting warp in immortals.
Well...I also support bringing the hydra down to hatch tech with similarly nerfed stats xD
But really, maybe a potential idea for warp gate is only being able to warp in certain units.
Zealot, Stalkers, DTs, and Adepts can be warped in, but everything can be produced from gateways.
Immortals, HTs, and sentries have to traverse the map or be transported via a warp prism. Additonally, if HTs were only from gateways maybe they could bring back Khaydarin Amulet to compensate.
Immortals IMAO are quite well positioned in Robo. They were simply too "heroic" as they were extremely efficient hardcounters with their old passive. Right now, it would make sense to have them a bit tuned down in damage, slightly reworked and get a big cost reduction, moving to 150/100 or 200/100 at max with reduced build time, and bring back the alpha range upgrade (range up to 7). Immos would feel really strong, being a ground supperiority fighter, and possibly used as core army. Maybe it's time to have a very cost efficient unit by itself with general use. Dragoons were quite decent all-around units. Stalkers are also quite all-around, extremely mobile and micro dependant, but struggle in terms of DPS. Immortals could take that old Dragoon role and empower it, acting as strong DPS and being relatively masseable.
OneGoal's interpretation of a warpgate Immortal was executed quite well, if not perhaps even a bit underpowered. They swapped it with the Sentry going to Robotics Facility and buffed the Sentry's shields, so that FFs were rarely available en masse, but Sentries were also slightly less squishy and vulnerable to getting summarily executed in a quick surround. I think the Immortal was 150/100, with 100/250 shields and health, and had an attack that did 15 + 10 armored, and hardened shields was removed. Personally, I'd probably nudge it up just a teeny bit in both cost and armor bonus, just to reinforce its role as a high-damage output unit. I'm thinking 175/100 cost, the same shields and healthy, and a attack of 15 + 15 armored, and then keep its new barrier ability from LotV. The Sentry could maybe go up to 60/60 shields and health if it was restricted to being produced one by one from the robo.
On April 28 2015 05:59 EleanorRIgby wrote: new terran aa unit like the valkyrie? suck it mutas
Actually, the last developers' statement on it made it sound more like a Terran corsair with a toggled non-splash siege mode.
It's funny how Blizzard wants to share meaningless details about rejected unit designs that honestly just make them look like they don't know what they're doing. My university professor told me this: when you write a report don't turn it into a travel blog about all the different paths you took to get to the destination.
I dont get what Blizz and DK are going to accomplish with this new flying AA unit...
(1) Pick an arbitrary rule: “add two units per race”. (2) Realize the race has no need/room for such a thing. (3) Apply anyway.
FYI - David Kim mentioned why they wanted to have a starport specific AA splash uni
In general, we believe that armies made from the Factory or Starport will be more capable as independent compositions in Legacy of the Void. Players will be able to commit to a tech-path specifically, and so we are also interested in splitting out the mech and air upgrades again. We believe that bringing back this choice is a potential improvement for the game.
However, under that logic - I think that the Cyclone upgrade will then be out of place...factory unit with a T3 Starport Tech Structure upgrade. That goes against what I quoted above. Maybe Tech Lab with Armory upgrade? Like the WM upgrade. Personally I don't think that's enough though, as other have mentioned - the Lock on ability needs tweaking a little bit.
The other changes - let them test it and revert or further change as needed. I think the swarm host change has interesting potential. If a player does build say 3 or 4... You could, perhaps, view it like having a DT hit squad out on the map?
In saying that...I hope everyone realises that these changes are experimental. No doubt that there's going to be further buffs/nerfs to all these new units.
EPT
