EPTI'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
LotV Balance Update Preview - May 21 - Page 7
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores. | ||
|
Pseudorandom
United States120 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:46 ZenithM wrote: Hahaha, a majority of "approve" for single changes, but an overwhelming "disapprove" for "How do you feel about the overall direction of these changes?" Problem is, people on TL absolutely want to see that fucking dual mining 8 or 9 or 10 or I don't know what else tested, and will never be happy short of that. I like all the changes, though as usual they're a bit on the conservative side (that I can agree with). Of course we want to see other economy options, Blizzard said big changes and have stay conservative so far for the beta. They need to start doing big changes or they wont have the time to fine-tune everything before release and I believe will end up scraping everything then. WTB Blizzard man-mode and make some real big changes. Even their economy change is only a uber-fast clock on bases mining out (I don't like the way it works). | ||
|
Magnifico
1958 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:46 ZenithM wrote: Hahaha, a majority of "approve" for single changes, but an overwhelming "disapprove" for "How do you feel about the overall direction of these changes?" Problem is, people on TL absolutely want to see that fucking dual mining 8 or 9 or 10 or I don't know what else tested, and will never be happy short of that. I like all the changes, though as usual they're a bit on the conservative side (that I can agree with). The thing is, I'm don't think SC2 needs a lot of massive changes to be good (it's already good), contrary to popular TL belief. The new economy and the new units already make for a whole different game. People want to see huge changes to shit like warpgate, which obviously won't happen... TL users actually hate SC2. They play Starbow and Grey Goo. Those people on LR threads, power ranking threads and any other thread that is not about "design" are bots created by Team Liquid to sell ads. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:46 ZenithM wrote: Hahaha, a majority of "approve" for single changes, but an overwhelming "disapprove" for "How do you feel about the overall direction of these changes?" Problem is, people on TL absolutely want to see that fucking dual mining 8 or 9 or 10 or I don't know what else tested, and will never be happy short of that. I like all the changes, though as usual they're a bit on the conservative side (that I can agree with). The thing is, I'm don't think SC2 needs a lot of massive changes to be good (it's already good), contrary to popular TL belief. The new economy and the new units already make for a whole different game. People want to see huge changes to shit like warpgate, which obviously won't happen... well, let's be real: - Structure subgroup priority changes gets an overwhelming yes, because most people don't even know or care - Gas changes, sure, noone really cares about them - Swarmhost burrow move removal is a nerf to the swarm host, so it gets a upvote. But noones has ever seen a swarm host in LotV anyways --> those changes get upvotes, but it doesn't really influence how you feel towards the overall direction - Liberator gets an upvote because people like new toys. but the unit was announced anyways, its implementation is nothing you really register as a change. You knew it would come --> that doesn't really influence how you feel towards the overall direction Which leaves us with the mech upgrades which mech players hate and leaves more than just a sour taste for this patch overall, the burrow movement removal which makes zerg players go "why the fuck do you remove all our tools for early aggression again? drone to 60 10min NR again fuck off blizzard" and the turret change that gets a quite big no-no in general. So I can see that even if you gave a bunch of upvotes on the frontpage, you may end up not liking the patch overall because it kills stuff that you liked. And of course what you said, people were expecting changes beyond the expected and the tweaks. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:22 DinoMight wrote: But if you make it so that "just always have turrets" isn't economically damaging, you have 200 minerals of turrets countering 300/300 of oracle/stargate. or 300/250 + the cost of DTs. Maybe what they SHOULD do, is make the Oracle thing do slightly less damage but allow it to shoot for longer or give it a bit longer range or something. This encourages more harass / micro and reduces the binary nature of "yes I built turrets, am 100% fine" or "no I didn't build turrets, gg" EDIT - let me reassure you that I think it's entirely idiotic that an Oracle can come in, kill 5 marines, and then rape an entire mineral line. But also, the guy building the Oracles is pretty fucked if it doesn't do damage because it's so expensive. So they need to make it less binary. I think slightly longer range and less damage might accomplish that. I've toyed with the notion of changing the Oracle's attack from 15 + 10 light to 14 + 7 light, in order for it to still 2-shot Drones and Probes, therefore not becoming any more worthless against Zerg, while making it slightly less punishing against Terran. In particular, performing less brutally against Marines would make it not be so much of a quick win condition that your opponent simply couldn't react against in time. In fact, if it's weakened, it could maybe even be turned into a regular attack, susceptible to upgrades and armor, and without any concerns of energy "ammunition". On full upgrades, assuming +2, +1 upgrade scaling, Oracles would be greatly improved against static defense in the super late game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
Maybe what they SHOULD do, is make the Oracle thing do slightly less damage but allow it to shoot for longer or give it a bit longer range or something. This encourages more harass / micro and reduces the binary nature of "yes I built turrets, am 100% fine" or "no I didn't build turrets, gg" In order to reward more move-in-and out micro the following changes should be made: - 6 range - Max acceleration and turn rate - Lower damage vs light - Attack cooldown around 2-2.5 - Less HP/Shield. Source: spent a couple of hours testing the effect of various changes and how it impacts the cost effcieicny with and without micro). With these changes 5 marines can easily kill an oracle that isn't microed, but with proper micro you can take out 6-7 Marines. I am all for making early game units more microable and powerful but imo all races need that backbone so they don't instantlie die due to a splitsecond mistake. No ebay Missile turrets give terrans that background in a more healthy way than what Photon Overcharges provided toss with in hots. With regards to DT's, you can make tech pattern cheaper, buff their speed or perhaps give it an upgrade in order to maintain their viability. | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:10 Hider wrote: In order to reward more move-in-and out micro the following changes should be made: - 6 range - Max acceleration and turn rate - Lower damage vs light - Attack cooldown around 2-2.5 - Less HP/Shield. Source: spent a couple of hours testing the effect of various changes and how it impacts the cost effcieicny with and without micro). With these changes 5 marines can easily kill an oracle that isn't microed, but with proper micro you can take out 6-7 Marines. I am all for making early game units more microable and powerful but imo all races need that backbone so they don't instantlie die due to a splitsecond mistake. No ebay Missile turrets give terrans that background in a more healthy way than what Photon Overcharges provided toss with in hots. With regards to DT's, you can make tech pattern cheaper, buff their speed or perhaps give it an upgrade in order to maintain their viability. Sounds like a protoss banshee. On a more serious note, I don't mind more AA for terran, maybe one day widow mines will be ground only and we can play carriers against Terran. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:03 Pontius Pirate wrote: I've toyed with the notion of changing the Oracle's attack from 15 + 10 light to 14 + 7 light, in order for it to still 2-shot Drones and Probes, therefore not becoming any more worthless against Zerg, while making it slightly less punishing against Terran. In particular, performing less brutally against Marines would make it not be so much of a quick win condition that your opponent simply couldn't react against in time. In fact, if it's weakened, it could maybe even be turned into a regular attack, susceptible to upgrades and armor, and without any concerns of energy "ammunition". On full upgrades, assuming +2, +1 upgrade scaling, Oracles would be greatly improved against static defense in the super late game. I think that oracles should have the attack of the MothershipCore, with slightly more damage and full micro potential. This way, Oracles can be a pain in the ass without being so hardcoutnered and being micro intensive (for example, with 0 damage point and 6 range with decent damage per shot). The laser is good as a harass, but not trully interesting IMAO. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:10 Hider wrote: In order to reward more move-in-and out micro the following changes should be made: - 6 range - Max acceleration and turn rate - Lower damage vs light - Attack cooldown around 2-2.5 - Less HP/Shield. Source: spent a couple of hours testing the effect of various changes and how it impacts the cost effcieicny with and without micro). With these changes 5 marines can easily kill an oracle that isn't microed, but with proper micro you can take out 6-7 Marines. You realize this would make oracles unstoppable gods tvp unless the damage nerf is so severe to make them worthless to build? | ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
really dropped the ball this time. sometimes i feel like i'm the only one that sees the gaping holes in this game. the biggest ones (unit wise) are shaped like a corsair, valkyrie, and devourer, imo. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:50 TheWinks wrote: I don't understand the point of splitting mech upgrades. They WANT terran to transition (it's why they nerfed the marauder), they WANT tank and I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores. It doesn't prevent anything, it just means that you will have to upgrade Air/Mech if you want Air/Mech units, like the rest of factions. That should have been the case from the start. I don't really know why Terran players feel entitled to have obviously different units from different techs and for different purposes share the upgrades. It is like someone suggesting that all 3 Zerg unit types(ground melee, ground ranged and air) should share the upgrades and me saying how it is an awesome idea because it allows me to mix the units more, what a fucking nonsense. Don't know if you realize that removing upgrades removes strategies, decisions, timings and tactical choices from the game. So I have to upgrade ground melee attack and armor, and air attack and maybe air armor at the same time just because I want my air units to do something when later I switch to them or try to use them together with the ground units, but you demand for your Vikings to be 3-3 at the same time your Thors and Tanks are upgraded as well with the same upgrades. I have no idea why anyone would think that is normal, if you want your Vikings and Banshees upgraded, then upgrade them. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:23 fenix404 wrote: ok so a valkyrie that stands still and only does single target.... really dropped the ball this time. sometimes i feel like i'm the only one that sees the gaping holes in this game. the biggest ones (unit wise) are shaped like a corsair, valkyrie, and devourer, imo. Wanting BW units back isn't such a novel idea. And you probably didn't understand what the new unit is doing. | ||
|
wUndertUnge
United States1126 Posts
On the other hand, it does give a strategic choice rather than a given ability, more tech path decisions. hm.... | ||
|
okto
United States20 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:23 Ramiz1989 wrote: It doesn't prevent anything, it just means that you will have to upgrade Air/Mech if you want Air/Mech units, like the rest of factions. That should have been the case from the start. I don't really know why Terran players feel entitled to have obviously different units from different techs and for different purposes share the upgrades. It is like someone suggesting that all 3 Zerg unit types(ground melee, ground ranged and air) should share the upgrades and me saying how it is an awesome idea because it allows me to mix the units more, what a fucking nonsense. Don't know if you realize that removing upgrades removes strategies, decisions, timings and tactical choices from the game. So I have to upgrade ground melee attack and armor, and air attack and maybe air armor at the same time just because I want my air units to do something when later I switch to them or try to use them together with the ground units, but you demand for your Vikings to be 3-3 at the same time your Thors and Tanks are upgraded as well with the same upgrades. I have no idea why anyone would think that is normal, if you want your Vikings and Banshees upgraded, then upgrade them. ^This I'm very happy that they split the upgrades again. This will help balance bio vs mech in TvT. In terms of the other matchups, my only issue was with swarmhost and colossus and both were nerfed/changed in LOTV. Also, who said you needed 3/3 to build a thor, or any other unit? Upgrade your bio and micro thors with medivacs like Maru does and become a BEAST. Everyone knows attack upgrades are most important anyway. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:22 TheWinks wrote: You realize this would make oracles unstoppable gods tvp unless the damage nerf is so severe to make them worthless to build? I kinda agree with the concept, except the low fire rate: Oracles have an intersting role at stopping some early zergling runbies. Very low fire rate doesn't really help I think, even if in your conception, glass cannon is a thing. I think that with enough endurance, it can be a good harass unit. Don't forget projectile. But I think Oracles are even too fragile now, no need to nerf them. Oracles will shine only early game, after turrets get into, the Proposed oracle would be shit. | ||
|
lfvtavares
Brazil3 Posts
| ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:23 Ramiz1989 wrote: Don't know if you realize that removing upgrades removes strategies, decisions, timings and tactical choices from the game. So I have to upgrade ground melee attack and armor, and air attack and maybe air armor at the same time just because I want my air units to do something when later I switch to them or try to use them together with the ground units, but you demand for your Vikings to be 3-3 at the same time your Thors and Tanks are upgraded as well with the same upgrades. I have no idea why anyone would think that is normal, if you want your Vikings and Banshees upgraded, then upgrade them. Removing upgrades also adds strategies, decisions, timings, and tactical choices. The different races are different and direct comparisons and talk of 'entitlement' isn't going to work. Should each zerg tech building have a separate set of larva to build only units associated with that tech building? No, that would be silly. I'm cool with maintaining strict lines between tech paths, but you have to design the comps with that in mind and have to accept that transitions aren't viable. HotS bio tvz is a great example. The widow mine doesn't benefit from attack upgrades because it deals spell damage and then by the time you have to mix in thors you have an economy where you can afford weapon upgrades for the Thor. If the widow mine required mech upgrades to stay viable against ling/bane, you'd have significant balance issues. I'm fine with leaving transitions mostly non-viable just like in HotS TvZ, but blizzard wants terran to, say, transition from bio tvz or tvp in the late game into ~something~. That's explicitly why they nerfed the marauder. Therefore they should be making decisions that lead them to this goal rather than erecting more walls. | ||
|
crown77
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 22 2015 06:50 TheWinks wrote: I don't understand the point of splitting mech upgrades. They WANT terran to transition (it's why they nerfed the marauder), they WANT tank and I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores. I think it's pretty unfair for the game to have a race with 4 upgrades instead of 5. It allows for a ton of time optmization compared to other races in order to maximize the potenitla of their armies. Also, consider that dealing with Mech involves use of air and ground units for both Zerg and Protoss, and that involves strategical use of 5 upgrades to maximize. Mech can optimize their army with 2 upgrades only. Fair? Nope. And even less with Mech being buffed: Cyclones OP, siege tanks flying, anti-mutalisk Liberator, Immortal nerfed... I think they should do like in HotS beta, when weapon upgrades were split for mech , and armor upgrades for mech combined but slightly more expensive. Let's analyze it in depth with numerical facts: Each upgrade takes 160/190/220 (570s) to research for each. Zerg has meele (450), ranged (450) and ground caparace (675), and air attack (450) and air caparace (675). Total gas & mineral cost = 2700/2700 Total time cost: 570s x 5 = 2850s (47.5min) Protoss has ground weapon (450), ground armor (450), air weapon (525), air armor (525) and shield armor (675). Total gas & mineral cost = 2625/2625 Total time cost: 570s x 5 = 2850s (47.5min) Terran has infantry weapons (525), infantry armor (525), mech attack (525) and mech armor (525) Total gas & mineral cost = 2100/2100 Total time cost: 570s x 5 = 2280s (38min) As you can see, even with some additional upgrade, mech would not be nerfed: it would be standarized in terms of costs of upgrading compared to other races. Fair design to split mech weapons. Let's face it: the difficulty of transitioning for terran is due to the structural cost of building facilities and the lack of synergy between styles. It is not about upgrades, that's for sure. Increase the building speed of some units like tanks and banshees and suddenly mech would be much more viable. I think that production efficiency is one of the forgotten ones in SC2. Think of Carriers. Carriers are considered shitty in HotS, but feel quite stronger here in LotV: Reasons? Increased utility and production rate. 30 seconds less to be produced means that CB can be optimized much more too. 4 carriers on 2 Stargates take 4 minutes to build in HotS and 3 in LotV (without CB). 1 minute of difference is 1.5 cycles of production for Zerg. It's less time to react by the time they see it. That's pretty significant IMAO. Obviously the utility upgrade helps, but that doesn't add any more damage that Carriers couldn't already do. because of the simple fact that the production is 25% faster, meaning that you can optimize and get units out much more faster with the same money, and that also reduces window times, which is a very decisive factor, specially when teching to get counters for the units that are being produced: armies take time to be produced. Time is also a resource in a RTS game and that is being ignored. There was a big review of the efficiency of macro and build times in the earliest patches of WOL beta and that should happen again here. Production strength and economy go on par, so changing one of them should lead to the other one. | ||
| ||
