For this balance update, we focused on the new Terran unit and tightening up in areas where we’ve made previous changes.
A quick note before we get to the changes: We’d like to explore various maps a bit more during the beta, so we wanted to get your thoughts on testing old ones, as well as new Season 3 maps from HotS in order to be able to pinpoint what’s best for Legacy of the Void Season 1. We want Void to support map diversity and are eager to test out various scenarios with the new units and changes.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the changes we’re planning on for the next update.
Liberator added to the Starport
Liberator is an AA splash damage unit that can target a specific ground location to deal high single-target damage to enemy units in that location.
Mech air and ground upgrades are split again
With the updates to the Starport units as well as the Liberator add, we felt the Starport is rounded enough to split into two different upgrades again. This will create more specific choices in unit composition and strategies in Terran matchups. Our hope here is that we see a good variety in the Barracks/Factory/Starport units be used in various matchups and situations.
Cleaned up structure subgroup priorities
We heard your feedback regarding subgroup priorities for structures in SC2. We did a cleanup pass on all three races in this area, so please check it out. After these changes, subgroup priorities will generally be as follows: Production buildings > global upgrade buildings > buildings with one time upgrades.
Geyser amount increased to 2000 (to match the ratio of new minerals)
We’re currently seeing that the last mineral amount tweaks are working out well for the game. Therefore, we cleaned up the Vespene Geyser amounts to be equal to the ratio of the current mineral patches per base.
Roach burrow move now requires an upgrade again
Roach burrow move is another area we’ve cleaned up. We felt the double buff in this area was too much. To remedy this, we decided to keep the speed buff for Burrow move Roaches, and added the Tunneling Claws upgrade back. We feel that the strategic choice this upgrade provides as an investment option on Roaches is cool, thus factoring in to the decision to revert this nerf from the two changes we did in this area.
Swarm host doesn’t burrow move
The new Swarm Host is looking good so far, but we wanted to reduce the number of complexity on this unit by removing its ability to burrow move. Going forward, if Swarm Host needs to be changed, we’ll be looking to make numbers changes, and avoiding adding rule changes that add to the complexity of the unit.
Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
We felt this change didn’t get used much, and the choice to just build Turrets easily didn’t feel like a good add to the game.
As always none of this is final, so please share your thoughts and feedback so that we can work together towards a better Legacy of the Void. After this patch, we’d like to focus the beta testing efforts on the new Terran unit, and how different strategies and races interact with different unit compositions that utilize the Liberator. After the update goes live, please focus your playtesting and feedback around using or going up against the Liberator. Thank you.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Yeah, I dont see any reason for Terran needing an Ebay to make a turret. Why on earth does Zerg not requires Evos to makes spores, lets revert that aswell then.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Yeah, I dont see any reason for Terran needing an Ebay to make a turret. Why on earth does Zerg not requires Evos to makes spores, lets revert that aswell then.
Would someone be so kind and would post pics of the Liberator and the stats? Really wanna see how it looks.
Hmmm. Are both Mech upgrades split?They should have kept at least the armor upgrades merged. Turrets on E-Bay might be a pain against Oracles again. Maybe make them 75 minerals like in BW. Hope someone good that plays Mech streams so i can see the new stuff in action.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Disagree. With how fast minerals are obtained relative to gas you end up with a surplus of minerals and building a missile turret becomes an easy obvious, blind decision rather than something reactive. Free missile turrets narrows down the early game options even more than the 12 worker start already does. We want more options not less.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Disagree. With how fast minerals are obtained relative to gas you end up with a surplus of minerals and building a missile turret becomes an easy obvious, blind decision rather than something reactive. Free missile turrets narrows down the early game options even more than the 12 worker start already does. We want more options not less.
The guy who is making turrets is still skipping on other stuff relative to a player who isn't. So the decision isn't blind, as it will let you fall behind if you make them without good reason.
The Liberator, is it like the "Attack Ground" command you could do with Catapults in Warcraft2? Why not add this ability to tanks instead of coming up with a new unit?
On May 22 2015 02:48 The_Templar wrote: None of these changes besides the liberator really... do anything. So why is the beta supposed to be so long?
This is my thinking too. I guess in the future they will change Snipe and PDD and that's kinda it. Still seems so incredibly unambitious.
And I hate the turret reversal. Guess early game will be more coinflippy once again.
Yeah personally I feel as though all these changes make the game feel like heart of the swarm again. This is taking a step back in someway in every change except for the liberator.
On May 22 2015 03:05 jotmang-nojem wrote: The Liberator, is it like the "Attack Ground" command you could do with Catapults in Warcraft2? Why not add this ability to tanks instead of coming up with a new unit?
1)Ebay--turret + Cyclone not hitting air = huge nerf to mech early game through blind counters and luck based play.
2)Having the Starport as a "strategy" is retarded. The combined upgrades makes sense because we have no fucking reliable anti air on the factory, like the Goliath, but have to use Vikings.
A great start with LOTV ideas, turns more and more in to the same lack of vision we have been accustomed to.
So what the fuck is the point of a long beta when were just adding units and slowly reverting changes back to HotS. I really really fucking hope we don't have it be like the last expansion when it was just WoL + New units.
These are all pretty "good" changes for the most part but it just seems like an underwhelming patch for an early part of the beta, feels more like a patch that would come out right after the beta just to tighten things up.
No more economy experimentation? No Adept or Disruptor or Cyclone tweaks? No Warp Gate proposals?
On May 22 2015 03:10 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: So what the fuck is the point of a long beta when were just adding units and slowly reverting changes back to HotS. I really really fucking hope we don't have it be like the last expansion when it was just WoL + New units.
Sorry this is blizzard we're talking about. At this point i'll be surprised if it isn't just HotS + new units.
On May 22 2015 03:11 Beelzebub1 wrote: These are all pretty "good" changes for the most part but it just seems like an underwhelming patch for an early part of the beta, feels more like a patch that would come out right after the beta just to tighten things up.
No more economy experimentation? No Adept or Disruptor or Cyclone tweaks? No Warp Gate proposals?
Where is the actual.....beta design chances? O__o
This is Blizzard's idea of "massive design changes" I guess. Minor unit tweets and a new unit. I'm so disappointed right now.
If there is no more warp gate change I will probably not buy LotV, that shit needs to be nerfed into oblivion.
I was hoping that the Liberator's anti-ground attack would be a separate immobile transformation mode instead of a spell. I liked the idea of it having a single-target, high-damage, high-cooldown, mid-long range auto-attack that wasn't as effective against cheap units but could zone out high-value targets like Colossi or Ultras or besiege immobile units like Siege Tanks. With the 8-armor Ultras, the Liberator could have theoretically been a cool counter. If it could counter Siege Tanks pretty well in TvT, maybe Blizzard could have room to buff Tanks to help in TvZ and TvP without breaking TvT.
I really hope they split the mech ground/air in HotS too. Its silly that they threw in lotv swarm hosts and expected everything to be fine.
In terms of these changes I really wish there was more experimentation being done. I guess once we see the new unit in action we can make a better judgement but this patch just seems underwhelming
It also sounds like the liberators attack (or is it an ability) is a really weak version of the mothership ability planet cracker that never made it past alpha in WoL
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Disagree. With how fast minerals are obtained relative to gas you end up with a surplus of minerals and building a missile turret becomes an easy obvious, blind decision rather than something reactive. Free missile turrets narrows down the early game options even more than the 12 worker start already does. We want more options not less.
are you serious? do you know how limiting the threat of proxy oracle is to terran buildorders? i thought i could do something else in lotv than opening every game reaper expand into either widow mine drop or 3 rax but it seems like DK likes to see terran being pigeonholed into the same two openers every game.
On May 22 2015 03:11 Beelzebub1 wrote: These are all pretty "good" changes for the most part but it just seems like an underwhelming patch for an early part of the beta, feels more like a patch that would come out right after the beta just to tighten things up.
No more economy experimentation? No Adept or Disruptor or Cyclone tweaks? No Warp Gate proposals?
Where is the actual.....beta design chances? O__o
This is Blizzard's idea of "massive design changes" I guess. Minor unit tweets and a new unit. I'm so disappointed right now.
If there is no more warp gate change I will probably not buy LotV, that shit needs to be nerfed into oblivion.
I think they are right now only trying to patch in the liberator, that's why the changes aren't that massive. Still disappointing. So far we have had a few experiments, half of them reverted + new units. I think there is going to be more stuff, but I doubt there is going to be much meaningful experimentation coming.
Since we are in a "long Beta" that has to test radical stuff, when are we going to test other eco. changes? Or slowing down battles? Or anything of significance. Are we already in the phase of polishing?
So what distinguishes this liberator unit from vikings or thors? Vikings were supposed to have a raiding capability with their transformation but they are too slow so it isn't used. Is this basically a do-over? Terran is starting to feel like Total Annihilation where you have a billion different unit types with tons of overlap.
Splitting mech and air upgrades is terrible. Now Terran has to spend by far the most ressources into upgrades because they have 6 sets of upgrades compared to the 5 for the other races and also armories are much more expensive than forges or evos.
SH borrowed move was an interesting idea in the hit and run style. You could back out fast or stealthy or play risky with a SH hit squad. I don't know what was too complex about them.
•Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We felt this change didn’t get used much, and the choice to just build Turrets easily didn’t feel like a good add to the game.
And why exactly didnt it feel like a good add? Telling us "didnt feel like a good add" says to little.
On May 22 2015 03:21 BaronVonOwn wrote: So what distinguishes this liberator unit from vikings or thors? Vikings were supposed to have a raiding capability with their transformation but they are too slow so it isn't used. Is this basically a do-over? Terran is starting to feel like Total Annihilation where you have a billion different unit types with tons of overlap.
Viking better vs units in lower numbers and units that are armored.
But yeh, they could easily have fulfilled the role of the Liberator by tweaking the Viking and the Thor properly.
And why exactly didnt it feel like a good add? Telling us "didnt feel like a good add" says to little.
When someone talks and acts like a duck all the fucking time, he probably is a duck. Thus, there is no reason to believe that David Kim is this oversmart analytical guy who has a tons of well-thoughtout reasons for each change.
SH borrowed movie was an interesting idea in the hit and run style. You could back out fast or stealthy or play risky with a SH hit squad. I don't know what was too complex about them.
So SH burrow is too complicated, but what about all of the active abilities, e.g. on the Immortal. How on earth isn't that an unncesariy overomplication?
On May 22 2015 03:24 ejozl wrote: We have less changes this time around, because they spent their time designing the new unit. Patience ppl...
People keep saying patience, this is supposed to be a long, etc.
When do we start caring? When they have a release date so nothing big will even happen? Myself, I'm going to be expressing my discontent and disappointment until they start doing some of the big changes they talked about instead of reverting everything they changed.
Yes they were designing a new unit, but they've been doing that for quite a long time as they should've been with every other part of the beta.
Adding a unit is such a big deal, that I doubt they could make any other major changes this patch, or else the results would get all confused (too many variables makes for terrible experimentation).
I'm sure they have a HUGE list of potential changes to make (I mean, it is their job), but they can't make them all at once or they'd never be able to make a judgement about any.
On May 22 2015 03:21 royalroadweed wrote: I just hope that with the turret change reverted TvT openers won't become nearly exclusively banshee and anti-banshee openings again.
If we take into consideration cyclones don't shoot air now, I hardly doubt it.
I feel like the turret change was really bad, a turret didn't completely shut down aggression, a good player would still get kills with their banshee, oracle, burrow roaches, DT, etc. Now however it doesn't matter, if banshee or an oracle gets in your mineral line its just gg, like in HotS.
I don't know about the new unit and spliting upgrades, I guess it needs to be tested to see if its for the better.
However this pretty fucking bad for mech, AA was always mech biggest weakness, now if they wan't to keep the upgrades split they NEED to put the AA cyclone attack back by default, they should change cyclones in others ways instead of this stupid hardcounter that air has over cyclones.
Also I agree with other no big changes at all, seems like Blizzard was just bluffing and we are just going to end with WoL 3.0
Last, make LotV maps the community knows how to do this, don't use HotS maps, they are not made for LotV play, that much is obvious.
On May 22 2015 03:11 Beelzebub1 wrote: These are all pretty "good" changes for the most part but it just seems like an underwhelming patch for an early part of the beta, feels more like a patch that would come out right after the beta just to tighten things up.
No more economy experimentation? No Adept or Disruptor or Cyclone tweaks? No Warp Gate proposals?
Where is the actual.....beta design chances? O__o
This is Blizzard's idea of "massive design changes" I guess. Minor unit tweets and a new unit. I'm so disappointed right now.
If there is no more warp gate change I will probably not buy LotV, that shit needs to be nerfed into oblivion.
I think they are right now only trying to patch in the liberator, that's why the changes aren't that massive. Still disappointing. So far we have had a few experiments, half of them reverted + new units. I think there is going to be more stuff, but I doubt there is going to be much meaningful experimentation coming.
i agree that right now blizz just want to finish the adition of new units for lotv and i really hope more experimentation comes after this. for the time being lets just see how the liberator perform in the game and what rol will end up having
On May 22 2015 03:42 RoomOfMush wrote: Wow. 3 pages of people complaining or calling blizzard incompetent. This community sure aint happy.
Which is really weird since most of the polls seem to indicate general approval of these changes.
The changes themselves can be good or at the very least not bad without the general direction of changes being that great. Making changes to X, Y and Z units could still be negative because the changes are incremental or too small to make a real impact, even if the individual changes aren't bad.
On May 22 2015 03:42 RoomOfMush wrote: Wow. 3 pages of people complaining or calling blizzard incompetent. This community sure aint happy.
Which is really weird since most of the polls seem to indicate general approval of these changes.
The changes themselves can be good or at the very least not bad without the general direction of changes being that great. Making changes to X, Y and Z units could still be negative because the changes are incremental or too small to make a real impact, even if the individual changes aren't bad.
Exactly, hence why we need a "general direction" poll.
The individual changes aren't bad, it's just that we woiuld prefer they did something else rather than unit tweets. There's so much to experiment with in this game, but all we're doing is unit tweets :/
On May 22 2015 03:42 RoomOfMush wrote: Wow. 3 pages of people complaining or calling blizzard incompetent. This community sure aint happy.
Which is really weird since most of the polls seem to indicate general approval of these changes.
They might like the changes, but they dislike the fact that other changes have not yet come.
Some people that disapprove of the direction of the changes might have voted negatively in the polls, especially since there wasn't an "overall changes" poll at first.
Way to small changes for me to feel any better about blizzard abilities, at this point they should try out different concepst instead of tweaking upgrades etc Additionally I would like more extensive explanations on what they try to achieve with their changes. While I do like that they try stuff I don't see what gap or roll the Liberator is supposed to fill, so I would love to hear their thought process on the matter along with a whole bunch of other things.
On May 22 2015 04:00 Gullis wrote: Way to small changes for me to feel any better about blizzard abilities, at this point they should try out different concepst instead of tweaking upgrades etc Additionally I would like more extensive explanations on what they try to achieve with their changes. While I do like that they try stuff I don't see what gap or roll the Liberator is supposed to fill, so I would love to hear their thought process on the matter along with a whole bunch of other things.
Liberator = Beat mass Mutalisks, but weak vs Mutalisks in low numbers.
On May 22 2015 04:00 Gullis wrote: Way to small changes for me to feel any better about blizzard abilities, at this point they should try out different concepst instead of tweaking upgrades etc Additionally I would like more extensive explanations on what they try to achieve with their changes. While I do like that they try stuff I don't see what gap or roll the Liberator is supposed to fill, so I would love to hear their thought process on the matter along with a whole bunch of other things.
Liberator = Beat mass Mutalisks, but weak vs Mutalisks in low numbers.
I can't really complain they're taking their time. I did recently bitch they should test units and economy separate and with Terran getting a new unit it is logical to wait and see before really making more huge changes.
But seriously this need to make Terran weak to air unless it comes from a damned Starport? Please! Okay fine yes I realize there were a lot of changes but I don't think they fundamentaly alter Terran air.
A couple of speed upgrades doesn't make Terran air that much better, but fine whatever.
My predictions are the Thor goes unchanged, they remove the Liberators anti ground attack (it overlaps with the siege tank and Cyclone and we're finding it too confusing for new players), and they remove the Cyclone ability to shoot air period.
Right now there's way too much overlap between the Siege Tank, Thor, Liberator, and Cyclone. It's giving them free reign to make stupid balancing decisions that they will take far to long to revert once they figure out what these units do.
Do something with the stupid Thor. It's obsolete completely now and it really needs to become the tanky tip of the spear it was supposed to be in WOL.
Remove Liberator anti ground move. Remember when this was what the Thor did pre beta and you said it overlapped with Siege Tank too much? Well now it overlaps with that AND the Cyclone.
Give Cyclone back it's anti air move and balance it some other way. Do something with attack speed or make it volley fire like the Valkyrie did. Lock on, couple rounds of burst fire. Gives the opponent a chance to escape and keep the units anti air role from being too powerful. Make it a tech lab add on with armory.
On May 22 2015 03:21 Charoisaur wrote: Splitting mech and air upgrades is terrible. Now Terran has to spend by far the most ressources into upgrades because they have 6 sets of upgrades compared to the 5 for the other races and also armories are much more expensive than forges or evos.
I'm pretty sure this is a response to mechvZ. At this point, due to the change to swarm hosts, you're only option is roach hydra into viper because the terran can just start producing air and have them be as well upgraded as their ground. This adds the ability to go air versus mech as zerg and not be forced into just one composition to counter.
On May 22 2015 03:10 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: So what the fuck is the point of a long beta when were just adding units and slowly reverting changes back to HotS. I really really fucking hope we don't have it be like the last expansion when it was just WoL + New units.
Couldn't agree with you more.
BIG changes pls.
Economic big changes.
Also, why another splash AA damage for terran? This feels like reaching to me. Thors = splash AA, Hunter seeker = Splash AA, now + one more splash AA... = the protoss of the sky
Why so few people in the beta? Wouldn't it be more helpful to let more people in?
These kind of updates feel like running in circles to me, rather than moving forward.
On May 22 2015 03:10 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: So what the fuck is the point of a long beta when were just adding units and slowly reverting changes back to HotS. I really really fucking hope we don't have it be like the last expansion when it was just WoL + New units.
Couldn't agree with you more.
BIG changes pls.
Economic big changes.
Also, why another splash AA damage for terran? This feels like reaching to me. Thors = splash AA, Hunter seeker = Splash AA, now + one more splash AA... = the protoss of the sky
Why so few people in the beta? Wouldn't it be more helpful to let more people in?
These kind of updates feel like running in circles to me, rather than moving forward.
Because it's a beta. They don't want a lot of people to play it, hate it, and then not buy the game.
Things are not balanced at all and they're still working on it so they don't want to negatively affect the mass market's perception of what the finished product will be like.
Terran has not just counters, terran has heavy counters to air like marines, mines, thors, ravens, but blizzard in their balance reunion:
David Kim:"Uhm, i think terran need other heavy anti air, lets make another aoe damage called liberator." Butt Kisser A: "Yeah, is a great idea." Butt Kisser B: "You always have the solution David." Butt Kisser C: "Wonderful." David Kim: "I know it, tnx to all."
On May 22 2015 04:32 DinoMight wrote: Because it's a beta. They don't want a lot of people to play it, hate it, and then not buy the game.
Things are not balanced at all and they're still working on it so they don't want to negatively affect the mass market's perception of what the finished product will be like.
They are doing just that for me with these patches. Same old with Blizzard doing nothing that the community seems to want. I know we do ask for a TON of different things, but even when they said they would be trying BIG changes these first patches have been a huge disappointment for me.
On May 22 2015 03:33 ejozl wrote: We've said we wanted more Upgrades, so they've: Split Mech/Air upg, Engi req. for Turrets, Upg for Tunneling Claws back. Good times.
I'm interested in your source for this, since I couldn't recall any major effort to campaign for this on reddit and such.
The turret, tunneling claws, and terran upgrade separation changes really makes sense to me. You want people to be forced to commit to some techpath or other especially with the greater economy. If anything I think they should do more of that.
On May 22 2015 04:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The turret, tunneling claws, and terran upgrade separation changes really makes sense to me. You want people to be forced to commit to some techpath or other especially with the greater economy. If anything I think they should do more of that.
What greater economy? From what I know they have the same economy, with more workers at the start, the mineral total lessened, and some patches are smaller. Everything seems to be a reduction to the amount of money you'll get, but you start off higher.
On May 22 2015 04:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The turret, tunneling claws, and terran upgrade separation changes really makes sense to me. You want people to be forced to commit to some techpath or other especially with the greater economy. If anything I think they should do more of that.
What greater economy? From what I know they have the same economy, with more workers at the start, the mineral total lessened, and some patches are smaller. Everything seems to be a reduction to the amount of money you'll get, but you start off higher.
The turret, tunneling claws, and terran upgrade separation changes really makes sense to me.
Turret is not a tech path. It's a get this or else you might due to stupid cheese because your scouting tools aren't reliant enough.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
On May 22 2015 05:07 hansonslee wrote: This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
Not having everything being easily available to you is part of this thing SC2 has been kind of lacking in, it's call "strategy"
Still no ladder. What is the point of a beta if nobody actually plays it, hein? Still no trying out of the proposed economy changes, why not? No Protoss tweaks. I kinda understand that the new terran unit is a big deal and that they want to focus on it first, but this doesn´t mean they aren´t allowed to make more drastic changes, its a damn beta after all.
I would love if we would receive a blogpost in the next few days, at least letting us know which direction they take and what they are having in mind, because i can not see a common theme here.
On May 22 2015 05:07 hansonslee wrote: This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
Not having everything being easily available to you is part of this thing SC2 has been kind of lacking in, it's call "strategy"
Well, Zerg can change its tech from ground units to air, and Protoss can do the same. Terran have to stick with the same composition for the most of the game (with the exception of its mirror match up). If you want strategy, then you should introduce the race's ability to adapt and counter the opponent's style. Plus, it's more dynamic and fun to see tech transitions.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
On May 22 2015 05:07 hansonslee wrote: This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
Not having everything being easily available to you is part of this thing SC2 has been kind of lacking in, it's call "strategy"
Well, Zerg can change its tech from ground units to air, and Protoss can do the same. Terran have to stick with the same composition for the most of the game (with the exception of its mirror match up). If you want strategy, then you should introduce the race's ability to adapt and counter the opponent's style. Plus, it's more dynamic and fun to see tech transitions.
Zerg and Protoss can't "just do it", they have to setup forever to do so, or start mixing it in early. That's not different at all for Terran in TvZ and TvT. Opening and constantly producing a decent amount of banshee, viking and raven is possible. Playing defensively and eventually switching into a mainly airbased composition too.
I don't see what you are talking about. If you want to, you can. If instead of playing defensively and getting a setup and a position where this starts making sense, you rather choose to use your resources to throw units into your opponent, then that's your choice. You can't play aggressive with unit replenishment and defensive with tech build up at the same time, that's not different at all for Zerg or Protoss.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Yeah, I dont see any reason for Terran needing an Ebay to make a turret. Why on earth does Zerg not requires Evos to makes spores, lets revert that aswell then.
Probably cause zerglings & roaches both can't attack air while marines can and cost only minerals.
Blizzard should make siege tanks a bit stronger and get the siege mode upgrade back as well imo. That would be good overall.
I don't understand why ppl complain. This is nowhere near final anyway.
Announcing big changes does not forbid them to do minor tweaks!
On May 22 2015 05:07 hansonslee wrote: This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
Not having everything being easily available to you is part of this thing SC2 has been kind of lacking in, it's call "strategy"
Well, Zerg can change its tech from ground units to air, and Protoss can do the same. Terran have to stick with the same composition for the most of the game (with the exception of its mirror match up). If you want strategy, then you should introduce the race's ability to adapt and counter the opponent's style. Plus, it's more dynamic and fun to see tech transitions.
Every race can change their composition, that is viable or going work is different, saying that zerg can change its tech from ground to air, is like say terran can change from mech to bio, it is possible, but in both situations the investement in a compostion was already made, and for zerg are 3 different compositions from ground melee, ground range, and air, what make the switches more restrictive, i don see ur point, specially where terran had an unique upgrade for mech air and ground, what makes so flexible.
On May 22 2015 05:24 Solar424 wrote: The Liberator: because Terran needs even more ways to deal with Mutas
Yup, they are continuing with their "hard counter" policy and it is really stupid.
I am quite surprised(or not) that they have decided to revert the Roach changes back to the HotS(well almost), but at the same time left Ravagers in the current sad and miserable state which has one niche use and that is to destroy Force Fields for the cost of 100/100.
I would gladly leave Roach burrow movement in game from the start but increase research time of Burrow so it doesn't kick in too early and then redesign Ravagers completely, than let it be like this. Right now, Ravagers cost too much and don't offer anything but Corrosive Bile that's very easy to dodge. They are even weaker than Roaches in HP, for 100/100 and 3 supply, it doesn't make any sense. Also when Protoss has like 10 Sentries, you having 5 Ravagers or so doesn't matter at all because they have cooldown for their Bile while Sentries just keep spamming Force Fields and Protoss will kill part of the army he is supposed to kill before you manage to cast second wave of Corrosive Biles.
I am fine with Swarm Host burrow movement being removed, but their explanation certainly doesn't make any sense as there are a lot of units with complex abilities and burrow movement that is already on Infestors and Roaches isn't one of them.
I find this hilarious you guys sit there and vote approved, neutral, approved and then disapprove of the overall patch? Hypocrites please. Not saying all of you but this poll is inconsistent :/ makes me sad to such disapproval. After seeing all the approval flying around.
On May 22 2015 05:38 Rukis wrote: I find this hilarious you guys sit there and vote approved, neutral, approved and then disapprove of the overall patch? Hypocrites please. Not saying all of you but this poll is inconsistent :/ makes me sad to such disapproval. After seeing all the approval flying around.
The changes by themselves are mostly fine, but the overall direction isn't.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
On May 22 2015 05:52 Roblin wrote: its fasinating how all except for one polls (excluding overall) show trends of approval, but the overall poll show trends of disapproval.
If i would guess, most people are fine with the "smaller"changes, but they are missing some heavy alterations.
Do they realize that: "Our hope here is that we see a good variety in the Barracks/Factory/Starport units be used in various matchups and situations." is completely undone by splitting the upgrades? There will now be much less variety as the upgrades tunnel you down ground or air tech paths. Good luck transitioning to air after you spent 800/800 on ground upgrades and your vikings are at 0/0.
Also, this turret change is going to bring back really lame builds that make HOTS awful. LOTV was thankfully less Oracle cheese dominated. Now every last Terran build must have 5 marines and/or an ebay to survive versus P (even if P doesn't go Oracle, the threat is there and must be dealt with because if you are wrong you lose).
On May 22 2015 05:52 Roblin wrote: its fasinating how all except for one polls (excluding overall) show trends of approval, but the overall poll show trends of disapproval.
People like the changes but they dont like the game. Changes are good but they are not enough.
Also, why have the thor in the game now? Terran doesn't need two different anti-light air splash units. Terran also doesn't need two different high ground single target units. These two units will directly conflict for the same roles (but air versus ground). The loser will be the thor. Why make such a jank unit that costs so much yet is only used for its alternate anti-air attack?
On May 22 2015 06:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Also, why have the thor in the game now? Terran doesn't need two different anti-light air splash units. Terran also doesn't need two different high ground single target units. These two units will directly conflict for the same roles (but air versus ground). The loser will be the thor. Why make such a jank unit that costs so much yet is only used for its alternate anti-air attack?
You will probably still produce Thors in the midgame vs Mutas as you don't have enough starport production.
But yeh, terran has become a race of too overlapping units.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
On May 22 2015 06:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Do they realize that: "Our hope here is that we see a good variety in the Barracks/Factory/Starport units be used in various matchups and situations." is completely undone by splitting the upgrades? There will now be much less variety as the upgrades tunnel you down ground or air tech paths. Good luck transitioning to air after you spent 800/800 on ground upgrades and your vikings are at 0/0.
Also, this turret change is going to bring back really lame builds that make HOTS awful. LOTV was thankfully less Oracle cheese dominated. Now every last Terran build must have 5 marines and/or an ebay to survive versus P (even if P doesn't go Oracle, the threat is there and must be dealt with because if you are wrong you lose).
I dont think they mean all the units in one game. I think they mean variety in your strategic options as a Terran player. You can go bio, or mostly factory, or mostly starport as 3 viable compositions... but not just do a zoo build of all types of units.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
The punishment for not making turrets is very extreme, so the investment to just always have turrets should be very low.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
Is not about scouting or not, scouting should be a tool to give you an edge, not a scout or die mechanic, its not good gameplay, no harras tool should ever be capable of completely win a game, also a good player will always get damage done with their units anyway its not like turrets completely stop things from damaging your workers. This wouldn't stop harrasing tools from working it would simply make it so they don't just outright win the game.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
The punishment for not making turrets is very extreme, so the investment to just always have turrets should be very low.
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.
On May 22 2015 06:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Do they realize that: "Our hope here is that we see a good variety in the Barracks/Factory/Starport units be used in various matchups and situations." is completely undone by splitting the upgrades? There will now be much less variety as the upgrades tunnel you down ground or air tech paths. Good luck transitioning to air after you spent 800/800 on ground upgrades and your vikings are at 0/0.
Also, this turret change is going to bring back really lame builds that make HOTS awful. LOTV was thankfully less Oracle cheese dominated. Now every last Terran build must have 5 marines and/or an ebay to survive versus P (even if P doesn't go Oracle, the threat is there and must be dealt with because if you are wrong you lose).
Why does terran need 3-3 on mech before it can start with air upgrades? A good metagame would allow terran to switch at different points of time in the game.
Just think about it this way: a) the final goal is a balanced game b) to achieve this, blizzard can either merge mech and air upgrades and make air units a bit weaker in the beginning or they split the upgrades and make air units a bit stronger in the beginning. As terran needs some lategame power, the latter one is the way to go. This is what blizzard is doing. Right choice.
Instead blizzard should do something about protoss upgrades. They can reach 3-0-0 or 3-X-Y on groundunits way too early with chrono boosts what is a bit odd. Protoss should be balanced around slower upgrades imo. Protoss upgrading should be like this: Chronoboosts must be used on upgrades to be on par with terran. If they use chronoboosts on units/eco, they should be slower in upgrading than terran ... and then again be balanced around this.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
No terran doesn't have reliable scouting tools, that's the whole issue. If you get lucky with your Reaper, good, if not you have to gamble (and yes scan is a gamble too).
Again, it's no coincidence that no other succesful game right now doesn't punish you as severely for guessing wrong.
Dying in CS? Ok, back again next round, and you can take a little break meanwhile or root for you team. Dying in LOL? You respawn and you now need to play a bit more carefully in lane. Dying in Heroes of the Storm early game?? Dying early game barely matters.
And then we have Sc2 where all players are forced to have perfectly refined builds and scouting patterns to just survive... Imo refined builds and smooth scouting patternes should give you a reward but shouldn't kill you if you make a slight mistake. Unfortunately that is the case in Sc2, and it's part of the reason why entrance barriers to the game are so high. And even when you get good at figuring out all the early game builds and how to react perfectly to them, it's not even that fun. Instead, the real fun of Starcraft has always been related to controlling units. Not fucking scanning an enemy base or scouting with a reaper or Scv.
People who defend the rock-scissor-paper element of early game RTS belong in the same category as those who defended no MBS, no automine and 12 unit-selection pre Sc2-release. For some reason, they have convinced them selves that these were essential parts of Starcraft, while in reality they are awfull for casual players and add nothing (to little) of value to the esport-part of the game.
Game-design is about identifying what the majority of the target group finds fun and not fun about the game and then getting rid of the latter. People will frequently say "XX unit is fun to play", but have you ever heard a single Starcraft-gamer say "wow starcraft is really fun when you have a refined early game build, and even if you don't, early game is still really fun?"
And there is a reason noone is complementing that part of Starcraft, and that's because the rock-scissor-paper element is genuinly not enjoyed by most players.
All i see is many terrans complaining because they have to make eng. Bay to get turret. When they have like 20 units more than other races and non of them got nerfed plus many of them got buffed. Terrans are such whiners
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 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...
On May 22 2015 05:27 LSN wrote: I don't understand why ppl complain. This is nowhere near final anyway.
Announcing big changes does not forbid them to do minor tweaks!
It doesn't forbid them from doing minor tweaks as well as big changes, but there have been very, very few big changes since the beta came out (if any).
Introducing the Liberator DOES NOT count, Blizzard has a vested interest in creating new units for expansions that has absolutely nothing to do with making the game better - they need to put crap on the box cover to give casuals and critics something to get excited about.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
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).
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.
It's really quite clear that their idea for the new economy at least completely changes the way the game is played. Aside from pretty graphs which only show pitiful theoretical changes, it's unclear if Double Harvest even does anything in practice, even though its defenders want to see some huge revolution in gameplay.
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.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
The punishment for not making turrets is very extreme, so the investment to just always have turrets should be very low.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's part of the game too. Openers are too homogeneous when you're completely safe from every cheese with a single opener. If your scouting tools are not reliable enough (which I don't agree with as a side note), that's what needs to be fixed.
That type of logic is what keeps progress from occuring in an industry. You gotta look at what is fun about gameplay and what isn't. I guarantee you that almost all players hate the coinflippy openings of the game. It's not surprise that MOBA's have become so succesful by removing this element from the game.
There's definitely still coinflips in MOBAs. They're different kind of coinflips but they have them. Hell the entire pick/ban phase is partially a coinflip. Then there are things like early jungle invades, early buff steals and the like that occur in LoL
LOL has a mich higher defenders advantage so you can afford to die or get behind early game and your team can still win (usually). At least I can't recall a single LOL game I have ever played (casual gold player fyi) where the loss could be almost entirely contributed to a coinflip.
But stuff such as "I didn't think he went Oracle/DT/Blink Stalkers" --> I instadie --> Awfull playing experience, and any progressive game designer would get rid of those elements.
The thing is it's not a guessing game.
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
The punishment for not making turrets is very extreme, so the investment to just always have turrets should be very low.
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.
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.
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.
You realize this would make oracles unstoppable gods tvp unless the damage nerf is so severe to make them worthless to build?
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.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
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.
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.
Erg, I'm really miffed with the roach nerf. Couldn't they at least have tried tying it into the Glial Constitution and up the cost a bit? Many of the movement speed upgrades are kind of boring in general, and at least with the burrow/tunneling claws tie-in, it gave zerg a really strong mid game.
On the other hand, it does give a strategic choice rather than a given ability, more tech path decisions.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
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.
^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.
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.
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.
Good changes indeed, but appears to me that blizzard is lost, or they dont give a fk for sc2, sc2 is losing space and need some great changes, not only in gameplay but in the interface too. they shold have some teaching with riot.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
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.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
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.
Erm, the reason the merged the upgrades for terran wasn't that terran air was weak. It was because terran mech was weak (which it has always been against protoss) and Z had swarmhost. The second the remove swarmhost mech is viable again so the reason to merge upgrades disappear. Seems like Blizzard themselves forget why they make changes and just make something up that sounds like it makes sense lol
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
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.
On May 22 2015 08:05 TheWinks wrote: I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
On May 22 2015 08:05 TheWinks wrote:The different races are different and direct comparisons and talk of 'entitlement' isn't going to work.
Spore revert would be because of how timings have changed, not because zergs 'don't deserve it' because terran has an engy bay requirement. Removing the pre-reqs make more sense in a HotS world imo.
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.
You realize this would make oracles unstoppable gods tvp unless the damage nerf is so severe to make them worthless to build?
If you spent 2 minutes before you made low-quality comments you probably realized that my changes actually overnerfed the Oracles damage vs light. Attack cooldown on Oracle is 0.86 now, and I suggested 2-2.5 and lower DPS vs light on top of that. That's actually way too much. On top of my head I can't remember exact attack cooldown I tested (yes I spent hours testing a version of this oracle, you could at least use two minutes before you write please), but it was probably closer to 1.5-1.6 now that I think about it.
And with the right numbers, this doesn't make the Oracle either useless or OP. It actuallly does the opposite as its not longer a gimmicky unit that can be nullifed by critical mass, but instead a unit that gets utility through its moving shot. Similar to how Mutas functioned in BW.
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.
In order to promote in-and-out micro, units needs to have a long attack cooldown, otherwise there is no reason to go out in the first place. Thus, either you go for this amove Oracle or you opt for a moving shot variant that has a low attack speed.
In terms of stopping early Speedling harass, I think that's easily balanced by reducing energy cost (or jus removing it all together) of Pulsar Beam. Enemy no longer relies on Oracle running out of energy (which is a lame interaction in the first place) but instead can rely on micro.
I see they still haven't thought of any changes to make the ghost more useful. But whatever they do, I hope they give them stimpacks along with it. This would allow them to be able to escape fights with stim bio. Would also allow them to move faster into position to use their abilities.
As long as the cyclones get its AA back, it wouldn't be so bad, but depending on thors for AA would just make mech even more turtly.
I thought both upgrades was fine, it added a lot of variety to mech play.
The problem isn't or was ever that it was too strong or too weak, they just need to know what the fuck they wan't with mech.
Is mech a strong cost efficient composition that has a hard time producing units or take bases? Then its ok to have both since they would dependent on getting units, it doesn't matter how the upgrades cost since mech wouldn't have as many resources as other races.
Is mech another mobile composition, not strong more mobile easier to take bases? then yes mech can have different upgrades since they can take as many bases and thus as many resources.
So what does Blizz wants with mech? bio 2.0? more like broodwar? If they have no idea what mech is supossed to be no change will ever make sense.
On May 22 2015 05:07 hansonslee wrote: This still doesn't solve how Terran has the most trouble transitioning their tech. For a "flexible" race, it still cannot change its composition whenever the need is necessary.
Not having everything being easily available to you is part of this thing SC2 has been kind of lacking in, it's call "strategy"
Well, Zerg can change its tech from ground units to air, and Protoss can do the same. Terran have to stick with the same composition for the most of the game (with the exception of its mirror match up). If you want strategy, then you should introduce the race's ability to adapt and counter the opponent's style. Plus, it's more dynamic and fun to see tech transitions.
Zerg and Protoss can't "just do it", they have to setup forever to do so, or start mixing it in early. That's not different at all for Terran in TvZ and TvT. Opening and constantly producing a decent amount of banshee, viking and raven is possible. Playing defensively and eventually switching into a mainly airbased composition too.
I don't see what you are talking about. If you want to, you can. If instead of playing defensively and getting a setup and a position where this starts making sense, you rather choose to use your resources to throw units into your opponent, then that's your choice. You can't play aggressive with unit replenishment and defensive with tech build up at the same time, that's not different at all for Zerg or Protoss.
Well, here's the layout:
Zerg: melee/air upgrades can be translated to tier 3 units like ultralisks and brood lords due to the muta/ling/bling composition. Also, in ZvP, roach/hydra can be transitioned into mutalisks. Zerg can develop a strong army of brood lords but can retain the mutalisks for map control.
Protoss: though a bit slower than Zerg, it still can develop its t3 army due to its shared upgrades. The air transition is possible because some of the air units like phoenixes and oracles have utility throughout the entire game. Also, the warp prism can be used in staging grounds or harassment areas.
I will definitely agree that these setups take time. However, Terran has the slowest rate of transition. If you look at all of the match ups except for TvT, Terrans have to usually stick to bio or mech. They cannot switch one way or the other because bio relies heavily on fast paced aggression while mech focuses on methodical positioning and build up. I want Terrans to be more like TvT where all of the units can be used together. Zerg and Protoss can do it, why can't Terran?
Sigh I think it's safe to say blizzard is going to do no major changes to the beta. I was really hoping for some big changes but should have known better.
It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
It's a new game, why don't they take risks to make it a brilliant game. They need to make groundbreaking changes rather than these little tweaks. Is this a patch to HotS or a new $40 expansion.
Make changes like: - Economy Changes - Warp Gate Changes - High ground advantage
I'm Zerg and probably biased, but when do we actually get cool/good shit? Heart of the swarm? Ya nerf sh into the ground and buff Terran(tank/thor/hellbats/mines) and give protoss msc so they can't ever be out of position.
So they add some cool stuff to zerg for lotv, wait just kidding it's all already gone. Except nydus which is laughablly unkillable, woot?
I just want good changes that make zerg feel swarmy, that actually make it feel like I can do something with the race other then defend until T/P thinks it's time to move out and kill me.
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 valkyrie liberator use with bio as the liberator is clearly the intended answer to lurkers and addresses the weakness of tanks vs lurkers with muta support, they WANT comp diversity. This prevents all three of those things. Bio stays bio, mech stays mech, and any sky transition is done as turtle-y as possible because you have to build up the infrastructure and upgrades long before you see any benefit from the transition.
I'm cool with the engy bay requirement with the 12 worker start, but zergs should have to have an evo for spores.
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.
ROFL, no it certainly does not add strategy, decision and tactical choices, it removes any depth that those upgrades gave to the game.
Every race has strong points and weaknesses, I need only one building to be able to mass produce units of that type, but that's the reason why every Zerg's ground unit has 1-2 upgrades that are essential for their working, where you if you go for Bio need Combat Shields and Stim and you are set, or when going for Mech you don't even need that. Upgrades like Cloak, Drilling Claws, Concussive Shells are all occasional upgrades where Zerglings, Banelings, Roaches, Hydras, Ultras, Infestors, Swarm Hosts just don't do anything without their upgrades.
If you think that going for Mech and making Hellbats, Thors, Tanks, Medivacs, Vikings and Banshees while only in a need for mech attack and armor upgrades(and maybe Banshee's Cloak) is a good design and fair when compared to the other races, then you are pretty damn biased or lack the understanding of basic concepts in Starcraft 2, or both...
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.
You realize this would make oracles unstoppable gods tvp unless the damage nerf is so severe to make them worthless to build?
If you spent 2 minutes before you made low-quality comments you probably realized that my changes actually overnerfed the Oracles damage vs light. Attack cooldown on Oracle is 0.86 now, and I suggested 2-2.5 and lower DPS vs light on top of that. That's actually way too much. On top of my head I can't remember exact attack cooldown I tested (yes I spent hours testing a version of this oracle, you could at least use two minutes before you write please), but it was probably closer to 1.5-1.6 now that I think about it.
And with the right numbers, this doesn't make the Oracle either useless or OP. It actuallly does the opposite as its not longer a gimmicky unit that can be nullifed by critical mass, but instead a unit that gets utility through its moving shot. Similar to how Mutas functioned in BW.
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.
In order to promote in-and-out micro, units needs to have a long attack cooldown, otherwise there is no reason to go out in the first place. Thus, either you go for this amove Oracle or you opt for a moving shot variant that has a low attack speed.
In terms of stopping early Speedling harass, I think that's easily balanced by reducing energy cost (or jus removing it all together) of Pulsar Beam. Enemy no longer relies on Oracle running out of energy (which is a lame interaction in the first place) but instead can rely on micro.
I would test Adept values on oracles. Adepts are known for being damage inneficient in high masses because of overkilling, and same could apply to Oracle. Adept weapon is completely outdated since the moment they removed chain damage.
I think that if we can rebalance oracle with a harass basic attack, Pulsar beam goes out, even if it is quite interesting to snipe queens.
I also played around with that a lot. Try to find the Values, that values might be the correct values for the Adept.
I feel like these last many changes to the game is more of the same and shows that nothing will ever really change. All the promises I felt I was given and all the hopes I had for the game is slowly fading away. Maybe I am just salty as fuck but I really do not see anything changing much and the game as it is now will largely be how it will always be. Like it or not.
My main problem with these changes is that they're so badly explained. Does Blizzard seriously not have the time to write more than 1 sentence for each change? That's the real reason the design team gets so much flak, because we never get a good indication of the thought process behind changes, making most people believe that there isn't one.
Blizzard really needs to take a page from Riot's book in this case. Say what you will about the company but their patch notes are pretty amazing, with in-depth paragraph-long explanations of even the smallest changes and multiple replies to community questions in each patch and design thread.
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
I said the same a page ago. Mech only needs 2 upgrades going (+ each unit upgrade) to run at max.
In order to deal with Mech, other races have to play intensively, commonly with air units, involving at least 3 upgrades(ground armor, ground attack (meele or ranged) and air attack), to perform quite decently. Commonly 4 upgrades or the full 5 kit. Meanwhile, mech needs only 2.
Pretty solid patch, agree with most of them. I have been waiting for them to split up the mech air upgrade for a while, I think they could make it armor are shared though, it helps the air transition better. excited about the new unit, looks like terran will bring some freedom
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
I said the same a page ago. Mech only needs 2 upgrades going (+ each unit upgrade) to run at max.
In order to deal with Mech, other races have to play intensively, commonly with air units, involving at least 3 upgrades(ground armor, ground attack (meele or ranged) and air attack), to perform quite decently. Commonly 4 upgrades or the full 5 kit. Meanwhile, mech needs only 2.
I completely agree with you, just reiterating the point. I even said a few pages ago I'm hoping they bring that change to HotS too
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
Because the viper isn't enough even if it can blinding cloud the ground and parasitic bomb the air? or 8 armor ultra? or lurker? or ravagers?
Making air counter mech is the WORST thing, its just another get this an win hard counter. I don't really like to comment on racial bias, but this comment sounds like zerg simply don't want mech to be played at all.
If factory units were as autonomous as barracks units it would be ok, but they aren't and thats the problem.
I got BETA for three weeks and almost never play. I wanna see big changes Blizzard. WTF are you doing? I will continue playing HotS if there aren´t more significant changes...
Keep doing shit like this Blizzard and no one will play SC2. Four years ago I never ever faced one enemy/player in ladder twice. Nowadays in Diamond I play many players two-three times in a week...
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
Because the viper isn't enough even if it can blinding cloud the ground and parasitic bomb the air? or 8 armor ultra? or lurker? or ravagers?
Making air counter mech is the WORST thing, its just another get this an win hard counter. I don't really like to comment on racial bias, but this comment sounds like zerg simply don't want mech to be played at all.
If factory units were as autonomous as barracks units it would be ok, but they aren't and thats the problem.
Its not about making anything counter anything else. Its about making something viable. The current game forces a zerg to go roach hydra viper vs mech. This is terrible from both a spectator and player standpoint. What part of 2/3 of terran's supposedly separate (whether they truly are separate Blizzard clearly believes/intends them to be) arsenals sounds balanced in any way?
My heart sunk reading this. It's like, even if the SH works out to be useful and balanced it still seems boring as all fuck with the direction they're going in. It's like a low-risk alternative to ovie drops (something that is actually exciting).
Wasn't there a time where they were trying to make overlord drops better or am I going crazy? I'd love to see that be viable
My heart sunk reading this. It's like, even if the SH works out to be useful and balanced it still seems boring as all fuck with the direction they're going in. It's like a low-risk alternative to ovie drops (something that is actually exciting).
My heart sunk reading this. It's like, even if the SH works out to be useful and balanced it still seems boring as all fuck with the direction they're going in. It's like a low-risk alternative to ovie drops (something that is actually exciting).
Certainly it is, for years i heard and can´t count the times that zerg players was begging to blizzard to make overlords drops viable, XD.
I feel like the biggest problem with these updates is that a lot of them are balance updates (as the title implies, obviously), when they really should be design updates; they should finagle with the roles of units directly and more often at this stage of development, and leave the fine-tuning of balancing later down the road, if the beta is really going to be as long as they imply. Change up some old units, give some TLC to neglected units, take the opportunity to fine-tune staple units, etc. They took a big first step with the economy change and the rush of changes in the beta debut, but they seemed to have shrunk back significantly since.
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
Because the viper isn't enough even if it can blinding cloud the ground and parasitic bomb the air? or 8 armor ultra? or lurker? or ravagers?
Making air counter mech is the WORST thing, its just another get this an win hard counter. I don't really like to comment on racial bias, but this comment sounds like zerg simply don't want mech to be played at all.
If factory units were as autonomous as barracks units it would be ok, but they aren't and thats the problem.
Its not about making anything counter anything else. Its about making something viable. The current game forces a zerg to go roach hydra viper vs mech. This is terrible from both a spectator and player standpoint. What part of 2/3 of terran's supposedly separate (whether they truly are separate Blizzard clearly believes/intends them to be) arsenals sounds balanced in any way?
This is not HotS, if ground attacking corruptors, buffed adrenal glands zerglings, immune nydus, lurkers, buffed broodlords, 8 armor ultras and ravagers aren't enough then I don't know what it is. Yes terran got buffs for mech too, but zerg is not pidgeon holed into roach hydra viper like in HotS (also in both mutas are still really strong).
Also making mech weak to anything air IS hardcounter.
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
Because the viper isn't enough even if it can blinding cloud the ground and parasitic bomb the air? or 8 armor ultra? or lurker? or ravagers?
Making air counter mech is the WORST thing, its just another get this an win hard counter. I don't really like to comment on racial bias, but this comment sounds like zerg simply don't want mech to be played at all.
If factory units were as autonomous as barracks units it would be ok, but they aren't and thats the problem.
Its not about making anything counter anything else. Its about making something viable. The current game forces a zerg to go roach hydra viper vs mech. This is terrible from both a spectator and player standpoint. What part of 2/3 of terran's supposedly separate (whether they truly are separate Blizzard clearly believes/intends them to be) arsenals sounds balanced in any way?
This is not HotS, if ground attacking corruptors, buffed adrenal glands zerglings, immune nydus, lurkers, buffed broodlords, 8 armor ultras and ravagers aren't enough then I don't know what it is. Yes terran got buffs for mech too, but zerg is not pidgeon holed into roach hydra viper like in HotS (also in both mutas are still really strong).
Also making mech weak to anything air IS hardcounter.
It has nothing to do with making mech weak to anything. Its about making using air possible. There is a huge difference between something being a hardcounter and something being viable and balancing mech. You ignored the fact that 2/3 of terran's unit compositions currently have one upgrade, which is an unfair advantage to them.
I think its important to note the difference between Protoss ground and Terran ground because hopefully this can explain it in another way. Robotics units cannot function on their own, they need to be integrated into gateway unit compositions to be of any real use. Air however, can fully function on its own. This is why Robo and gate units sharing upgrades (ground attack/ground defense) actually makes sense and isn't imbalanced. Blizzard is suggesting, again whether this is true or not will be determined by how the Liberator functions, that barracks, factory, and starport compositions will each be viable separate from one another. Because of this its an unfair advantage to terran to have 2/3 of their unique paths share upgrades, as it allows for more seamless and harder to counter transitions.
On May 22 2015 10:57 Spect8rCraft wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with these updates is that a lot of them are balance updates (as the title implies, obviously), when they really should be design updates; they should finagle with the roles of units directly and more often at this stage of development, and leave the fine-tuning of balancing later down the road, if the beta is really going to be as long as they imply. Change up some old units, give some TLC to neglected units, take the opportunity to fine-tune staple units, etc. They took a big first step with the economy change and the rush of changes in the beta debut, but they seemed to have shrunk back significantly since.
This this and this
Why are they adjusting balance? This is the beginning phase of the beta so I'm massively curious why they aren't taking the biggest design changes NOW since there really is no better time to do it
Major design changes like Warp Gate/Gateway unit overhaul are going to require testing and fine tuning thats going to take time, not to mention that Cyclones are still a disgusting unit to watch/play against they literally involve zero meaningful micro interactions, Adepts are still way too good in the early game and fall off hard in the mid to late game, Gateway is still useless to build.
Ugh, I was so excited to have the Beta and I barely even touch it because there is almost nothing going on.
Also Terrans have zero problem with air play so I'm not even sure what the point of this new unit is other then to give Terran another new unit in the expansion, Terran needs better tanks, a Raven redesign (auto turret probably the least elegant caster ability in the game) and Ghost buffs/redesign, not air splash, there is a million ways the Viking could have been made better or the Thor redesigned to provide that, why does the best designed race in the game need another unit just for the sake of having another new unit?
Once again these changes are good and probably for the better but these are just small, timid little baby steps that I would expect after the game is released, not the major design changes that we were promised.
On May 22 2015 09:14 Hider wrote: It seems lots of people doesn't properly understand the purposes of upgrades. There are only two (legit) reasons to have upgrades in the game in the first place:
(1) For balance purposes. (2) In order to promote interesting strategic options
So what does air upgrades have to do with anything here? Does it promote cool new options? No, who the !@#$%^&* cares whether you make a new armory timing so you get air weapon upgrades 12 seconds earlier than with some other builds. Strategic diversity in Sc2 is mostly interesting when it either comes to the way you are using your units or which units you build in the first place. In fact, having weapon and armor upgrades at all is another old-fashioned concepts that we only have in Sc2 because we had it in RTSs made in the 90s.
Going back to MOBA analogies, but one of the major strenghts of DOTA's (and Heroes of the StorM) relative to LOL is that items change the way you use your units while items in LOL are simply statbuffers. That's imo what upgrades should do (if not for balance purposes) in Sc2 as well and we don't need any more upgrades that add +5% DPS to a unit. No we need upgrades that have significant implications for the gameplay and forces the opponent to revisit his own strategy as a response.
Thus, the interesting strategy here is whether you wanna mix in Banshee/Vikings with your mech or whether you wanna go pure mech. Not what types of armory-upgrades you get.
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has. This is going to (apparently) become more apparent when this new starport unit is out because its going to allow terran to go either barracks/factory/starport independently of each other. If two thirds of those units have the same upgrades that gives terran an inherent advantage because they can switch between factory and starport units at "no cost" relative to upgrades
Because the viper isn't enough even if it can blinding cloud the ground and parasitic bomb the air? or 8 armor ultra? or lurker? or ravagers?
Making air counter mech is the WORST thing, its just another get this an win hard counter. I don't really like to comment on racial bias, but this comment sounds like zerg simply don't want mech to be played at all.
If factory units were as autonomous as barracks units it would be ok, but they aren't and thats the problem.
Its not about making anything counter anything else. Its about making something viable. The current game forces a zerg to go roach hydra viper vs mech. This is terrible from both a spectator and player standpoint. What part of 2/3 of terran's supposedly separate (whether they truly are separate Blizzard clearly believes/intends them to be) arsenals sounds balanced in any way?
This is not HotS, if ground attacking corruptors, buffed adrenal glands zerglings, immune nydus, lurkers, buffed broodlords, 8 armor ultras and ravagers aren't enough then I don't know what it is. Yes terran got buffs for mech too, but zerg is not pidgeon holed into roach hydra viper like in HotS (also in both mutas are still really strong).
Also making mech weak to anything air IS hardcounter.
It has nothing to do with making mech weak to anything. Its about making using air possible. There is a huge difference between something being a hardcounter and something being viable and balancing mech. You ignored the fact that 2/3 of terran's unit compositions currently have one upgrade, which is an unfair advantage to them.
I think its important to note the difference between Protoss ground and Terran ground because hopefully this can explain it in another way. Robotics units cannot function on their own, they need to be integrated into gateway unit compositions to be of any real use. Air however, can fully function on its own. This is why Robo and gate units sharing upgrades (ground attack/ground defense) actually makes sense and isn't imbalanced. Blizzard is suggesting, again whether this is true or not will be determined by how the Liberator functions, that barracks, factory, and starport compositions will each be viable separate from one another. Because of this its an unfair advantage to terran to have 2/3 of their unique paths share upgrades, as it allows for more seamless and harder to counter transitions.
Thats the whole point, they don't know what they want to make with the factory units, in BW mech had split upgrades because mech was a very good and autonomous composition, you had everything you needed in mech, and transition into BCs, Science vessels, and even wraiths and valkyries its a thing.
Making mech depend in the thor for AA is really bad, because the thor is really awful. If factory play was good I don't think it would be a problem, but its too dependant in starport units to be both good AND interesting.
So they feel that Terran mech needed a better aoe AA unit. Fair enough, Thors are pretty shit. They introduce Valkyrie 2.0. Cool cool. It's a Starport unit. Oh but wait, Starport and Factory upgrades are split.
So now Terran mech has two mediocre aoe AA to choose from - upgraded Thors or unupgraded Liberators.
On May 22 2015 05:24 Solar424 wrote: The Liberator: because Terran needs even more ways to deal with Mutas
Yes they do cause the Thor is awful a this role. Hope this is finally a reliable way to deal with these flyers that should have never gotten regeneration or a speed buff. At least for Mech.Dont know why so many Zerg Players are that biased about a Unit they cant Mass anymore and never should in the first place.
On May 22 2015 05:24 Solar424 wrote: The Liberator: because Terran needs even more ways to deal with Mutas
Yes they do cause the Thor is awful a this role. Hope this is finally a reliable way to deal with these flyers that should have never gotten regeneration or a speed buff. At least for Mech.Dont know why so many Zerg Players are that biased about a Unit they cant Mass anymore and never should in the first place.
"Hope this is finally a reliable way to deal with these flyers that should have never gotten regeneration or a speed buff.
I feel literally the exact same way as medivac boost costing no energy. A senseless speed buff that necessitated heavy buffs to Mutalisk because "drop play is cool and should always have a way to do damage."
You have scouting techniques and you should be able to tell when he's going for DTs or Oracles.
Any build that a Protoss is doing that looks like fast Oracle or DTs needs to get 2 gases. So the Protoss gives up some minerals to do that. Terran should have to give up some minerals in response..and I'm talking preemptively. Not just throw up 2 turrets at any time when the risk manifests itself.
No terran doesn't have reliable scouting tools, that's the whole issue. If you get lucky with your Reaper, good, if not you have to gamble (and yes scan is a gamble too).
Again, it's no coincidence that no other succesful game right now doesn't punish you as severely for guessing wrong.
Dying in CS? Ok, back again next round, and you can take a little break meanwhile or root for you team. Dying in LOL? You respawn and you now need to play a bit more carefully in lane. Dying in Heroes of the Storm early game?? Dying early game barely matters.
And then we have Sc2 where all players are forced to have perfectly refined builds and scouting patterns to just survive... Imo refined builds and smooth scouting patternes should give you a reward but shouldn't kill you if you make a slight mistake. Unfortunately that is the case in Sc2, and it's part of the reason why entrance barriers to the game are so high. And even when you get good at figuring out all the early game builds and how to react perfectly to them, it's not even that fun. Instead, the real fun of Starcraft has always been related to controlling units. Not fucking scanning an enemy base or scouting with a reaper or Scv.
People who defend the rock-scissor-paper element of early game RTS belong in the same category as those who defended no MBS, no automine and 12 unit-selection pre Sc2-release. For some reason, they have convinced them selves that these were essential parts of Starcraft, while in reality they are awfull for casual players and add nothing (to little) of value to the esport-part of the game.
Game-design is about identifying what the majority of the target group finds fun and not fun about the game and then getting rid of the latter. People will frequently say "XX unit is fun to play", but have you ever heard a single Starcraft-gamer say "wow starcraft is really fun when you have a refined early game build, and even if you don't, early game is still really fun?"
And there is a reason noone is complementing that part of Starcraft, and that's because the rock-scissor-paper element is genuinly not enjoyed by most players.
This is a pretty serious rant, it sounds to me as though starcraft just isn't the game for you. If you prefer the game play elements of MOBAs then why are you here ranting about how starcraft isn't one? Just play a MOBA.
Scouting is always a gamble in the early game regardless of race as there are always ways to deny or mislead the scout. I like that aspect of early game starcraft personally, but maybe I just played too many games of Battleship as a kid.
Starcraft has always been extremely popular and not just for an RTS, so why are you comparing the gameplay of starcraft to other games in different genres? What does that prove? You can die a lot easier in CS than in SC even if you have a refined strategy, but you respawn next round because that is how the game is designed.
If you don't like the "coin-flippy" nature of 1v1 in ladder then play some custom games or completely different games. I didn't play much BW ladder as a kid but I spent hours and hours playing custom maps.
My point is if you dislike the way the game is designed then find another game. It took months for Blizz to even look at changing the Cyclone, you really think they are going to change their immensely popular game design up now?
Another air unit? I mean massing air unit is already pretty fucking boring... I don't see zerg dealing well with it to be honest. Viking fills the role for air control, why add another, I don't see it's role.
Blizzard not addressing the real problems imo, oh well back to BW after HotS np
On May 22 2015 10:57 Spect8rCraft wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with these updates is that a lot of them are balance updates (as the title implies, obviously), when they really should be design updates; they should finagle with the roles of units directly and more often at this stage of development, and leave the fine-tuning of balancing later down the road, if the beta is really going to be as long as they imply. Change up some old units, give some TLC to neglected units, take the opportunity to fine-tune staple units, etc. They took a big first step with the economy change and the rush of changes in the beta debut, but they seemed to have shrunk back significantly since.
This this and this
Why are they adjusting balance? This is the beginning phase of the beta so I'm massively curious why they aren't taking the biggest design changes NOW since there really is no better time to do it
Major design changes like Warp Gate/Gateway unit overhaul are going to require testing and fine tuning thats going to take time, not to mention that Cyclones are still a disgusting unit to watch/play against they literally involve zero meaningful micro interactions, Adepts are still way too good in the early game and fall off hard in the mid to late game, Gateway is still useless to build.
Ugh, I was so excited to have the Beta and I barely even touch it because there is almost nothing going on.
Also Terrans have zero problem with air play so I'm not even sure what the point of this new unit is other then to give Terran another new unit in the expansion, Terran needs better tanks, a Raven redesign (auto turret probably the least elegant caster ability in the game) and Ghost buffs/redesign, not air splash, there is a million ways the Viking could have been made better or the Thor redesigned to provide that, why does the best designed race in the game need another unit just for the sake of having another new unit?
Once again these changes are good and probably for the better but these are just small, timid little baby steps that I would expect after the game is released, not the major design changes that we were promised.
Yeah I have the same feeling. The major design changes should happen BEFORE any of these small balance tweaks. From the looks of it Blizzard has in mind to ship HotS 2.0 and call it LotV. There are design problems with all 3 races but its most grievous with protoss that the community has been asking reworked. If truly large scale changes are being planned by blizzard now for LotV why bother tinker with these small things? These changes could prove good, bad, or even unimportant in the grand scheme once the big changes come, if even at all. It looks to be more of the same old same old. Polishing a turd doesn't make it any less of a turd.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Yeah, I dont see any reason for Terran needing an Ebay to make a turret. Why on earth does Zerg not requires Evos to makes spores, lets revert that aswell then.
On May 22 2015 12:53 Tresher wrote: I agree i found the Medivac boost stupid too. Its a pain for all races.
Oracles and Mutas have this speed constantly and Warp prism after an upgrade. That's almost impossible to catch them. So that's pain in the ass for everybody please don't complain about terran with a little boots of several seconds
On May 22 2015 12:53 Tresher wrote: I agree i found the Medivac boost stupid too. Its a pain for all races.
Oracles and Mutas have this speed constantly and Warp prism after an upgrade. That's almost impossible to catch them. So that's pain in the ass for everybody please don't complain about terran with a little boots of several seconds
Yea except Mutalisks and Oracles in low to medium number get warded off by a turret or two and a single medivac drop laughs at static defense and will almost always do damage unless Zerg is absolutely on top of the drop.
So much balance whining from terrans. Poor poor terrans - how did they dare remove free turrets?! It doesn't matter that even with this e-bay requirement terrans feel pretty confindent in HotS and in beta as well, and you have been given new unit too. Moar balance whining!
This is a pretty serious rant, it sounds to me as though starcraft just isn't the game for you. If you prefer the game play elements of MOBAs then why are you here ranting about how starcraft isn't one? Just play a MOBA.
Your missing the whole point. This is about making a better game, that's what LOTV should be about. My point would be less valid if Starcraft was a constantly growing game and every top post on r/starcraft showed videos of early game scouting patterns w/ people discussing how fun that is, but that's not the case. You can't simply just say "no this is what Sc2 is atm, and therefore it should always be like this regardless of how poor of an experience it adds for most players".
Also, RTS's are different from MOBA's in that you control multiple units (and Sc2 isn't a team game), but that's not to say that there isn't a lot to learn from other succesful games.
I like that aspect of early game starcraft personally, but maybe I just played too many games of Battleship as a kid.
Since you like that aspect, you should probably play poker instead of a game where mechanics matters! (You see what I did there? Yes that's an awfull way of arguing).
I think what you're missing is that it is a balance purpose. At the moment terran can go mech and there is only one effective counter for zerg. Splitting the upgrades allows zerg to use air against mech which can't be done now because you get stuck with muta/corruptor that have 0/0 upgrades while the terran has whatever upgrades their ground has.
How is this a balance purpose when Zerg have new imba Vipers that hardcounters terran air? On top of that, do you ever see lots of Banshee's/Vikings along with mech in the later game vs toss and terran?
Furthermore, the issue with airmech in TvZ HOTS was never with shared upgrades, but rather that Raven/Viking was ridcilous. There wasnt' any super strong get fast 3/3 timing that made mech too strong, but rather PDD was completely broken. Even without shared upgrades, terrans would eventually reach that state later in the game and the same lame gameplay would still exist.
I will try to be as tactful as possible with my post because there is a ton of anger and disappointment whenever i read LOTV patch changes.
Blizzard does not know what they are doing, and whoever is in charge of gameplay/balance is either really inexperienced or does not know their own game.
Mech has not been a viable option for the longest time, especially vs protoss because of a lot of issues. No anti-air unit, too expensive upgrades/armories, many other nerfs to mech units / buffs to things like oracles/warp prisms etc...the list goes on.
To see this patch, and to see the steps backwards blizzard are taking towards making LOTV an only bio game again is really disappointing to me as an sc2 player. They have repeatedly got it wrong so many times, over and over, to the point that something has to change and if these are truely the patch changes than i know nothing ever will change with this game.
The missile turret requiring ebay again is the perfect example of blizzard being clueless. That change alone allows tvp early game to finally not be random bullshit anymore, and then they revert it.
Also the changes are so tiny, so miniscule, so scared...no economy being tested...
Where are the changes? This is beta? Blizzard said they'd change? Every 1 month the tiniest of changes, and they always move backwards in regards to mech viability. It's disappointing.
I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively. And if play from rax, fact, and starport do actually end up being viable it just makes the situation even worse. What if you go air and your opponent shuts it down, but hasn't defeated you. What do you do exactly unless you have a way to effectively transition fairly quickly. It's just unwieldy.
If they insist on having all 3 it seems like it would almost be better to have a system where, for example, getting both upgrades for one branch gives a discount or research time decrease to the other branches for each tier of upgrades.
And it's not like they can say, oooh but it is so imbalanced to have only 2 sets of upgrades. It's the beta, there's plenty of time to tweak things, and the game is going to be a little out of wack anyway.
And I get that tech choice is supposed to be important, but investing in a whole set of upgrades when you don't need them seems like way too much of an investment, but researching them as you transition takes too long.
And as an aside, it has been mentioned that many of these changes are 'balance tweaks'. Why the hell are they 'tweaking balance' if they plan on trying a lot of new things which are going to mess with the game anyway. Wouldn't it be more productive to just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, see what sticks, refine, do it again, refine, THEN balance tweak? Shouldn't things like this be their focus right before the game comes out???
And perhaps I'm being a bit too critical, but I just think overall blizzard has been way to conservative with their approach to SC2 in general. They made a good game, and LOTV is going to be a good game. But if they want to make a GREAT game they have to get creative, they have to try things, they have to break things, they have to have failed ideas before they can get something truly awesome. As it stands they just seem afraid to break what they already have. Even in the live game i don't see why making bigger changes is such a bad thing. The best pros will adapt the quickest. The viewers will be constantly wowed by the cool new strategies that pop up instead of getting bored by meta that slowly converges towards similar gameplay every game. /endrant
Really not sure about the Liberator .. I feel like its another 'thor'-unit .. Speaking of which .. since they removed the thor ability. Its pretty much just a fat clunky unit .. i wish they would consider some changes to it .. maybe a downscale and renamed to goliath? :O
Also: their comment on 'the starport seems rounded enough to varrent splitting upgrades' makes me fear for the future .. not in terms of the upgrades .. but i really dont want a game where a race can choose flying units as their main tech. Oh well.. got into the beta yesterday . guess i'll have a looksi
On May 22 2015 15:18 Ej_ wrote: I like the new changes, but they could nerf thors a bit with valkyries back IMHO :[
I don't know why they don't just consider giving the viking a Fusion Core upgrade so they handle mass muta tech switches better in the late game.
Like they could have 2 AA modes of attack after the upgrade similar to the siege tank. The long-range, single-target, anti-armor attack that we have now and then a new short range (5-6) anti-light splash attack from the upgrade. Makes more sense in my mind rather than having an entirely new standalone unit.
I'm trying not to come down too hard on the Liberator considering I haven't even seen it in action yet, but the thing sounds like a total wasted opportunity.
On May 22 2015 15:18 Ej_ wrote: I like the new changes, but they could nerf thors a bit with valkyries back IMHO :[
I don't know why they don't just consider giving the viking a Fusion Core upgrade so they handle mass muta tech switches better in the late game.
Like they could have 2 AA modes of attack after the upgrade similar to the siege tank. The long-range, single-target, anti-armor attack that we have now and then a new short range (5-6) anti-light splash attack from the upgrade. Makes more sense in my mind rather than having an entirely new standalone unit.
I'm trying not to come down too hard on the Liberator considering I haven't even seen it in action yet, but the thing sounds like a total wasted opportunity.
The name is at least badass though >.>
Agree, the Liberator sounds like being there for having a new unit's sake, the Viking can fill it's spot perfectly with an upgrade, it is one of the few units in the game without any upgrades too.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
Actually i like the changes, brings us abit closer to a few of the things that, in my opinion, made BW good (for terrans at least)
Air upgrades separate from Ground is no problem. If we have reliable air units (BC+Viking/Liberator+Raven) maybe we could see some terran air play come back.....
Also I love the Liberator. Welcome back Valkyrie! Those people here saying that Terran didn't need a relatively mobile anti-mutalisk unit are not being quite honest. I mean, for us casual folks, who cannot constantly insta-drop-stim marines out of medivacs on the move and fight mutas with marines & godly micro......this is a perfect unit. Please don't bring up the Thor. It's a disaster as AA....basically a moving turret that is very heavily penalized by its immobility, slow firing rate and huge size (even with the AI-target AA). And it needs very deep factory tech (factory with techlab and armory), which doesn't synergise well at all with the current meta of Rines/Marauders/Medivac & Mines vZ. Hell, being able to pump out a mobile, airborn, anti-mutalisk unit from the same starport i get medivacs from? Thumbs up! And it can help abit with Phoenix openings i reckon.
Last but not least about the turret, PLEASE dont revert this Blizz! Why, why do we honestly need to build an ebay...... Those people advocating ''more scouting''....do you watch the GSL? Do you see the places where people are hiding stargates and dark shrines these days? Completely out of the way, not in their base at all! Most of the maps are quite big and there are 1000 places to hide.....your reaper needs to be lucky or you will miss it, and even if you get lucky and find it at your 3rd or wherever, if the stargate is already done and you dont even have ebay, the Oracle will pwn you. Again, i am talking from a very casual guy's perspective that doesn't count probes quickly /doesnt know how to watch the protoss' gas to realise that its DTs/stargate and not blink stalker for example.
Finally i am agreeing with veryone here saying that this kind of ''fine tuning'' is not needed at this early stage of the beta. This is the time to try out hardcore stuff! Fix the siege tank somehow! Nerf the mine a little bit so that its not mandatory against zerg! Give the Thor an actual use in TvP! Rework the raven! --> Make Raven Autoturrets AI target workers as priority so it can be a harassment tool, not just a random thing to put down/waste PDD energy --> Make the Seeker Missle actually useful / comparable to psi storm, so that we have an actual offensive caster, not just a defensive one with weak-ass offense.
I am just talking from a terran perspective but also Z and P have some major problems to solve and if they dont solve them now / test some solutions i dont know when they will.
No terran doesn't have reliable scouting tools, that's the whole issue.
Lol. Terran is the only race that has a scouting tool which can not be denied. Overseers, observers, hallucinations or any scouting unit can be shot down and heavily denied. Scan is the only scouting option which is impossible to deny.
Terran is the only race that has a 100% reliable scouting tool, as it will always scout the area you want to have scouted.
I'm curious if you play terran; that often alters perspective slightly, as to forget how zergs for example, have to sacrifice 150/50 to get scouting in.
And if your scan fails to scout the area, how about being like protoss or zerg and using a speedy air unit (Medivac + boost for example) to scout an area. Or a viking, or whatever.
Zergs have to invest 150/50 to scout, protoss have to invest energy or 25/75. Terrans can invest either energy, cheap reapers or if need be, a medivac.
No terran doesn't have reliable scouting tools, that's the whole issue.
Lol. Terran is the only race that has a scouting tool which can not be denied. Overseers, observers, hallucinations or any scouting unit can be shot down and heavily denied. Scan is the only scouting option which is impossible to deny.
Terran is the only race that has a 100% reliable scouting tool, as it will always scout the area you want to have scouted.
I take it you play terran? Your posts have been full of bias in this entire thread.
This isn't about balance. This is about game design (do we balance the game around rock scissor paper or do we create a foundation for a game with a proper defenders advantage?). So no, I don't care which race is 5% stronger than the othe race. All changes to all races that makes the game less coinflippy and increases the defenders advantage are good.
And no scan isn't a reliable tool as you don't always scan the right location. Everyone who played a basic amount of terran games are aware not. Does that imply I think Zerg scouting tools are reliable enough? No, especially not with 12-max worker start and I want to see faster slow overlords. Toss was less reliant on scouting due to Photon Overcharge, which imo is a band-aid fix for a defenders advantage (this isn't the way it should be done).
Zergs have to invest 150/50 to scout, protoss have to invest energy or 25/75. Terrans can invest either energy, cheap reapers or if need be, a medivac.
Even with your edit, you still think this is about balance. Didn't you see that I previously (in this thread) made suggestions to compensate DT's and Oracles?
On May 22 2015 16:26 Hider wrote: scan isn't a reliable tool as you don't always scan the right location. Please do a basic amount of background research before posting loq quality comments again. Thanks in advance.
So.. Be like the other races and start sacrificing units to get scouting in? Medivacs, vikings, reapers, hellions? We sac overseers, protoss sacs sentry energy or a potential unit; why would Terran be allowed to be so cocky as to not sac a unit?
Also, you are a very immature and aggressive person who loves himself some ad hominem. Why is that exactly? Your overall posts seem very aggressive and provocative, belittling by nature.
So.. Be like the other races and start sacrificing units to get scouting in? Medivacs, vikings, reapers, hellions?
I am not arguing that zerg or toss shouldn't receive compensation buffs if terran get more reliable defenders advantage or scouting tools (quite the contrary actually).
Reread my comments, and if you don't get the point, stop mentioning other peoples bias and instead ask questions in order to better understand what I am talking about. Thanks in advance.
Also, you are a very immature and aggressive person who loves himself some ad hominem. Why is that exactly? Your overall posts seem very aggressive and provocative, belittling by nature.
Eh, did you forget what you wrote yourself? Let me requote you for good measure:
I take it you play terran? Your posts have been full of bias in this entire thread.
You live in a glasshouse dude. Ignored from now on.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally, transitions do not exist if we are real unless you open slight bio (let's say 3 rack) and then go mech or vise versa, but that's not really all that great, its really down to the wire.
Mech in sc2 is not like Brood War, BW mech had their upgrades divided because ground mech had a strong kit, Vultures which are like hellions except they can do more damage, cost less are faster and the most important part they can deploy 3 spider mines (similar to Widow mines except they don't hit air nor workers, only ground units) which requiered not only a lot of multitask to micro (move a mech army deploy mines or just as a harass unit, since it was the most iconic unit in the game because of its micro potential) and it also helped to cover flanks, something KEY that sc2 mech does not have and that's why everyone calls mech ¨turtle mech¨ because without something to cover your flank mech always gets swallowed by the fast/ strongly responsive/ easy to move / control units that Sc2 has nowadays
And that's not all! BW had Goliaths, mid tier units that had an Anti air attack! unlike every sc2 mech unit (don't even dare to name the Thor, the Thor is like a big Marauder that shoots up but not even decently, the damage is bad the unit takes ages to build it has 0 micro potential because it also moves slow, it's horrible and no answer to air, especially not vs protoss air since they are not ¨bio-light¨ like mutas or whatever the designation is for them) Goliaths had lot of micro involved they were numerous and simple to transition since you already had the factories and they were well rounded vs ground too unlike thors which are half ass vs everything, zerglings own them so bad, just like Queens own Battlecruisers.
That's not all! Tanks were badass, and made tons of damage, the most Iconic Terran unit which now is just in some weird spot, (i would fix it by giving it a faster attack speed ratio, maybe take like 10% damage away but give 40-50% extra attack speed) the unit simply attacks too slow for what the mechanics are on this modern ages, sc2 units respond super fast, move fast and they are smart about what they target, yet the tank gets like no time to do damage nor can be repositioned (don't bring medivacs they are not there to move tanks around on a 200vs200 battle, it's just wasted effort and... ofcrs... supply on medivacs like lol wtf you want medivacs for on a mech army? rofl maybe to drop hellbats but that's just about it, and they can't do both things at the same time can they?) they can land 2 shots if lucky before they die.
Sc2 mech is a combination of Air+ Ground, unless you are pretty all in and just rallying units across the map and killing your enemy with them (which is not that often and considered cheese) you always need Starport units such as the Viking, Raven or the Banshee
Splitting the upgrades just allows me to see that the people in charge of these type of decitions don't play nor watch their own game, maybe they're thinking about Heroes a bit too much.
People complaining about the turret change sound like salty bronze-league players to me. Oracles can be scouted for by counting pylons, and if you can't scout DTs in time then there's really no hope for you. The only possibly bad thing is banshee openers being strong in TvT, but it's still one of the better matchups in HoTS as-is.
EDIT: And to anyone that says Terran lacks scouting options, how can I even respond to this? Reapers provide the best early game scouting of all three races. And beyond that, its not like Terran has an ability to instantly reveal any part of the map or anything...
For the record I play Terran. Anyone who thinks Terran is hard to scout with has obviously never played Zerg lol.
Zergs have to invest 150/50 to scout, protoss have to invest energy or 25/75. Terrans can invest either energy, cheap reapers or if need be, a medivac.
Even with your edit, you still think this is about balance. Didn't you see that I previously (in this thread) made suggestions to compensate DT's and Oracles?
It is not about balance. All this is and ever was about, is your statement that Terran lack a reliable scouting option. I just told you the reliable scouting options for zerg/protoss, and showed that terran have those exact same options.
So why would a medivac, hellion or reaper not be a reliable scouting option - along with a scan? Especially if scouting with units is more than adequate for zerg/protoss - why can't it be adequate for terrans?
On May 22 2015 16:42 alexanderzero wrote: People complaining about the turret change sound like salty bronze-league players to me. Oracles can be scouted for by counting pylons, and if you can't scout DTs in time then there's really no hope for you. The only possibly bad thing is banshee openers being strong in TvT, but it's still one of the better matchups in HoTS as-is.
EDIT: And to anyone that says Terran lacks scouting options, how can I even respond to this? Reapers provide the best early game scouting of all three races. And beyond that, its not like Terran has an ability to instantly reveal any part of the map or anything...
For the record I play Terran. Anyone who thinks Terran is hard to scout with has obviously never played Zerg lol.
And you sound like someone stuck in diamond, it's not about ¨scouting¨ it's about having an answer, oracles are not useless once turrets are built! like wtf, yeah it takes a bit more multitask and control from the oracle but you can still do damage, same with dts.
Once you notice something's wrong inside Protoss base, and you know it's a proxy it doesn't even matter if you scout it/know where it is or not, you just drop an E-bay instantly, because you don't know what's going to be, (poor you if there's a gate and a blink build behind it... but not even taking that into consideration it's still a waste) you waste too much money, minerals are 100 times more important early game than late game... do people even think about this concept? no one seem to take this into consideration.. when you're starting the game having to waste not only 125 minerals but the scv building it plus the time it takes to do it! its just retarded at this point in this game; Why did they remove the need of an evo chamber from Zerg for example? (to get spores)
E-bay + 3 turrets = 425 minerals + whatever those scv's would've mined on that time, probably around 75 aka 500 minerals, do you understand how much this is and how strongly puts the terran on their back foot?
And again that's not even the core issue why the E-bay is bad... if you don't have it, you just die! there's no response, i don't know any other match up nor mechanic in which a player makes a building then produces a single unit from it, right clicks it and the enemy leaves the game/dies later 100% (unless it's a bronze player vs a master or something) it's just ridiculous, silly at this point.
On May 22 2015 12:53 Tresher wrote: I agree i found the Medivac boost stupid too. Its a pain for all races.
Oracles and Mutas have this speed constantly and Warp prism after an upgrade. That's almost impossible to catch them. So that's pain in the ass for everybody please don't complain about terran with a little boots of several seconds
Im not complaining. And I play Terran myself lol. Take a look at the race icon I didn´t choose it cause I was bored.
On May 22 2015 14:16 Muxtar wrote: So much balance whining from terrans. Poor poor terrans - how did they dare remove free turrets?! It doesn't matter that even with this e-bay requirement terrans feel pretty confindent in HotS and in beta as well, and you have been given new unit too. Moar balance whining!
Guess you have never died to a Unit that shows up at your base at the ~ 5.00 min mark that you can´t defend cause you don´t have enough numbers of your basic defending Unit. And the ones you already have melt to this Unit in seconds just as your workers.
On May 22 2015 10:57 Spect8rCraft wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with these updates is that a lot of them are balance updates (as the title implies, obviously), when they really should be design updates; they should finagle with the roles of units directly and more often at this stage of development, and leave the fine-tuning of balancing later down the road, if the beta is really going to be as long as they imply. Change up some old units, give some TLC to neglected units, take the opportunity to fine-tune staple units, etc. They took a big first step with the economy change and the rush of changes in the beta debut, but they seemed to have shrunk back significantly since.
EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.
Well said.
Make BIG changes now... Because all the changes being made at the moment, are the same level of changes implemented in a typically balance update (The exception is the economy change. The economy change is a perfect example of a BIG change the game needs).
I voted that I disapproved of the direction of changes, because for this game to be good and lasting, something significant has to change.
I have been DIE-HARD fan and player since the game came out. One day mid-life of HOTS, I just decided to stop playing because I wasn't having fun anymore. I don't think it's because the "novelty" wore off, I think it's because eventually winning and losing ceased to feel rewarding/fun. I resented being put in the position to have to play a Swarmhost game, because it was the only viable option. I resented that it took me 1 hour to win and with the slightest misstep I lose my army and the entire match. I resented having to play split map and drag the game on for hours... After sitting and playing the game for 3 hours, I would be left feeling bitter/angry after loses and even wins. I could no longer justify participating in what was essentially 3 hours of "self-torment" that was supposed to be my leisure/fun time.
See, the eco change drastically affected the total match time. I have never seen a 1 hour beta lotv game, which I love. I get that others might not love that, but at least it had a REAL substantial effect.
The ONLY change in lotv I respect so far is the change made to economy. It is the only change that has had any real impact. Cyclones, ravagers, burrow speed, blah blah blah... These changes lead to the same traps that have plagued the game in HOTS and doesn't seem to make the game anymore "diverse". Those units are fun, and the micro requirements make the game a bit more exciting to play and watch, but to me the change doesn't feel big enough. It's just more of what I would get in a reg HOTS balance update, which in the end, didn't really make the game what people wanted it to be.
If more big changes don't happen I can't see myself continuing with this game.
Idk Blizz, maybe just do you're best to make the game the way the people want it to be made and ask for it to be made. Say fuck it, we are going to try DH mining because people seem to really want it. Instead it feels more like you're a parent (Blizzard) telling the kids (us, the community) that you actually know what's best for us and while we have some "cute" things to say... at the end of the day mother knows best. In reality, children are really smart and have some very legitimate teachings for adults. In this metaphor both sides parent/child are right, and the best option is seriously considering the validity and wisdom of both sides. Then just keep wide open communication between the two. Take the best from both sides and throw them together.
Hell, put the game into "early access" I would pay full price for it now. That seems to be a model that really works for game development in this day and age. I bet you 90% + of people would make a full payment commitment right now, and you would get a much larger sample of data on changes made. This is another example of a "big change" that I would respect and I think might have a significant impact on the end result.
On May 22 2015 16:39 Herecomestrouble wrote: You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally
Zerg does need to build bases (at least one more than terran + macro) and queens, and not forget to make injections every ~40 sec in order to keep production. Terran just can spam E button if he forgot to call mules in time and be done with it, but this won't work for Zerg. And Zerg does need to spread creep between those bases (at least) in order to keep his whole army in one place (which is necessary vs. mech). And those bases can easily be harrassed or destroyed (hellions, hellbats, banshees) - and don't you dare to speak about spines/spores - it is just laughable vs ~5 cloaked banshees with +1 attack (at least) or blue-flames hellions/hellbats, who just annihilate all drones in 5 sec if Zerg does not react ASAP. Mech terran in the late game can sacrifice nearly all his SCVs and go full ~190/200 army supply with mules behind, which Zerg can not allow to do. So your whine has no solid ground beneath it.
Zergs have to invest 150/50 to scout, protoss have to invest energy or 25/75. Terrans can invest either energy, cheap reapers or if need be, a medivac.
Even with your edit, you still think this is about balance. Didn't you see that I previously (in this thread) made suggestions to compensate DT's and Oracles?
It is not about balance. All this is and ever was about, is your statement that Terran lack a reliable scouting option. I just told you the reliable scouting options for zerg/protoss, and showed that terran have those exact same options.
So why would a medivac, hellion or reaper not be a reliable scouting option - along with a scan? Especially if scouting with units is more than adequate for zerg/protoss - why can't it be adequate for terrans?
Well just because the time DTs, Oracles, Blink Stalkers usually hit you must be perfectly prepared for it. This means if you didn't choose the correct tech path you will die. If you suggest using medivacs, helions, reapers and/or scans for this purpose and you get hit by one of those you will 100% die, because you invested the money you need for defense in scouting tools.
This at least was and is the reason in HotS why Terran couldnt make use of these legit 'scouting' tools. Simply for the reason by the time those scouting tools are out and such rushes hit you will die by not being perfectly prepared. At least this was the case in TvP. In this regard TvP had this big issue.
No terran doesn't have reliable scouting tools, that's the whole issue.
Lol. Terran is the only race that has a scouting tool which can not be denied. Overseers, observers, hallucinations or any scouting unit can be shot down and heavily denied. Scan is the only scouting option which is impossible to deny.
Terran is the only race that has a 100% reliable scouting tool, as it will always scout the area you want to have scouted.
I'm curious if you play terran; that often alters perspective slightly, as to forget how zergs for example, have to sacrifice 150/50 to get scouting in.
And if your scan fails to scout the area, how about being like protoss or zerg and using a speedy air unit (Medivac + boost for example) to scout an area. Or a viking, or whatever. Zergs have to invest 150/50 to scout, protoss have to invest energy or 25/75. Terrans can invest either energy, cheap reapers or if need be, a medivac.
@bolded sections:
Are you serious man? Have you ever heard of hallucinated Phoenixes? Have you seen their speed? Tell me exactly how can anyone deny that unless the guy flies directly over your army (a basic luck thing a bit comparable to having scan energy or not or scanning the right place or not - you cannot scan all the time, you need to make mules too, so availability/reliability is not 100% a bit like a hallu - i am not saying they are equal but still the scan is not 100%!). Please compare that speed of halu phoenix to the speed of a reaper. And some of us still use SCV to scout you know....and regarding zergs you count 150/50 probably because a dead overseer (?!) but actually you can scout just fine with chanelings which just cost mana, you don't have to sacrifice the overseer which maybe you build anyway for detection..... Plus you are mentioning all these costs....maybe you should look at another guy below who is describing all the minerals (so actual costs) that Terran needs to put down to make ebay and turrets that could be or could not be necessary. It makes you go on the backfoot early game....but if you dont do it, one oracle can annihilate your SCVs and its GG..... Clearly you are overestimating some things please reconsider....
On May 22 2015 16:39 Herecomestrouble wrote: You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally
Zerg does need to build bases (at least one more than terran + macro) and queens, and not forget to make injections every ~40 sec in order to keep production. Terran just can spam E button if he forgot to call mules in time and be done with it, but this won't work for Zerg. And Zerg does need to spread creep between those bases (at least) in order to keep his whole army in one place (which is necessary vs. mech). And those bases can easily be harrassed or destroyed (hellions, hellbats, banshees) - and don't you dare to speak about spines/spores - it is just laughable vs ~5 cloaked banshees with +1 attack (at least) or blue-flames hellions/hellbats, who just annihilate all drones in 5 sec if Zerg does not react ASAP. Mech terran in the late game can sacrifice nearly all his SCVs and go full ~190/200 army supply with mules behind, which Zerg can not allow to do. So your whine has no solid ground beneath it.
I think that you are missing his point. The investment required for a tech switch is so high for Terran that it is almost never feasible to do so. The difference between bio and mech is a base full of barracks or factories, as well as the relevant upgrades. The difference between ultras and brood lords is having an ultralisk cavern or a greater spire, because zerg produces all their units from the same structure. Protoss has a similar advantage due to warp gate, though not to as large of a degree.
EDIT: and while the discussion of macro mechanics is more or less irrelevant to this point, I would like to mention the downside of Terran macro. Zerg has the ability to pool larva over time, giving them the ability to rapidly spend the money that has banked up during that time. Protoss is also somewhat more forgiving when players miss production rounds, since they can immediately warp in reinforcements to a battle, which somewhat lessens the pain because enemy reinforcements may not have arrived yet (but this is nullified in PvP). Terran, on the other hand, can never recover the lost opportunity cost of a missed production round. When Terran players miss a round of production, they cannot catch up with a player who is macroing correctly until a battle happens.
I don't think Blizzard should balance around those kinds of failures to begin with, though. Still, play Terran and you'll see that it's not as easy as "drop mules, huge army."
On May 22 2015 16:39 Herecomestrouble wrote: You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally
Zerg does need to build bases (at least one more than terran + macro) and queens, and not forget to make injections every ~40 sec in order to keep production. Terran just can spam E button if he forgot to call mules in time and be done with it, but this won't work for Zerg. And Zerg does need to spread creep between those bases (at least) in order to keep his whole army in one place (which is necessary vs. mech). And those bases can easily be harrassed or destroyed (hellions, hellbats, banshees) - and don't you dare to speak about spines/spores - it is just laughable vs ~5 cloaked banshees with +1 attack (at least) or blue-flames hellions/hellbats, who just annihilate all drones in 5 sec if Zerg does not react ASAP. Mech terran in the late game can sacrifice nearly all his SCVs and go full ~190/200 army supply with mules behind, which Zerg can not allow to do. So your whine has no solid ground beneath it.
I think that you are missing his point. The investment required for a tech switch is so high for Terran that it is almost never feasible to do so. The difference between bio and mech is a base full of barracks or factories, as well as the relevant upgrades. The difference between ultras and brood lords is having an ultralisk cavern or a greater spire, because zerg produces all their units from the same structure. Protoss has a similar advantage due to warp gate, though not to as large of a degree.
EDIT: and while the discussion of macro mechanics is more or less irrelevant to this point, I would like to mention the downside of Terran macro. Zerg has the ability to pool larva over time, giving them the ability to rapidly spend the money that has banked up during that time. Protoss is also somewhat more forgiving when players miss production rounds, since they can immediately warp in reinforcements to a battle, which somewhat lessens the pain because enemy reinforcements may not have arrived yet (but this is nullified in PvP). Terran, on the other hand, can never recover the lost opportunity cost of a missed production round. When Terran players miss a round of production, they cannot catch up with a player who is macroing correctly until a battle happens.
I don't think Blizzard should balance around those kinds of failures to begin with, though. Still, play Terran and you'll see that it's not as easy as "drop mules, huge army."
Protoss has a similar advantage than Zerg due to warpgate? The thing that they have in common is that a production cycle can make a round of new units appear at the same time, but that only applies to Gateway units. But unlike Zerg, Protoss is quite limited due to the restriction of production facilities, like Terran.
I think that Protoss macro is quite similar to Terran in many aspects, except Warpgate for Gateway units, and even with that, the macro scheme behind is similar, limited to 1 unit per production facility each round, commonly around 10-12 units, while Zerg can trhow easily 7 units per production center, between 20 and 30 units).
We also need a ton of Gateways and some tech production buildings (2-3 robos/2-3 stargates). Reactors also decrease the need to build a ton of buildings like back in BW, as effectively reduces in half the amount of buildings you need for units.
However, I agree that the production efficiency for Terrans for Factory/Stargate units is quite low. Protoss' Robotics and Stargates work better, needing only 2-3 for dedicated strategies or 4-6 (seen sometimes on Stargate plays) in a very lategame, rare heavy tech scenario, while Terrans could commonly need around 5 to 8 + some addons to play mech with good production strength. There is a reason behind that: Protoss techy units are more expensive and supply intensive, so building a ton of them a time is impossible for cost restrictions most of the time, while Terrans have more mid-cost units and some low cost ones. That means that in order to optimize your production as a Terran, you need much more extra facilities to keep up with your macro. Protoss also has Chronoboost to optimize the production by a 33% temporarily.
I think that reducing some build times could help Terran a ton in that aspect. Tanks and Banshees, 2 units that have the potential to be included in biomech and pureMech strategies, have quite a long time to build. Tanks are quite okay, but Banshees take simply too much. Reduce the building time of Banshees, Ravens and BCs, but also WidowMines and Reapers, and the production will be much more viable, specially Terran air.
Reducing the buildtime about 25-40% would mean to cut 1 to 3 production facilities out of 5-8 that Mech normally uses.
They want to create variety by splitting mech upgrades? That is exactly what counteracts variety so we dont see hybrid compositions as much, because you cant get all necessary upgrades. If they want to see variety they need to keep the mech upgrades together. Also mech needs starport support and the other way around so that is terrible.
Missile turret change is terrible aswell, there are just too many threads in lotv now that are even harder to scout. Protoss has 2 gases in lotv can literally mean anything and oracles come can come faster than ever just as an example. (Unless the Liberator can reliably deal with air threats then it might be ok.)
On May 22 2015 19:02 Aquila- wrote: They want to create variety by splitting mech upgrades? That is exactly what counteracts variety so we dont see hybrid compositions as much, because you cant get all necessary upgrades. If they want to see variety they need to keep the mech upgrades together. Also mech needs starport support and the other way around so that is terrible.
Missile turret change is terrible aswell, there are just too many threads in lotv now that are even harder to scout. Protoss has 2 gases in lotv can literally mean anything and oracles come can come faster than ever just as an example. (Unless the Liberator can reliably deal with air threats then it might be ok.)
Tbh I actually thought they would change Banshee speed upgrade requirement to armory from fusion core along with this change. Haven't really seen a lot of people research it.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
Yes TL is.
You can see this from most polls that involve small terran tweaks that can be considered nerfs. There is always a big majority of voters against it which does not happen on other races tweak/nerf polls. Just like this turret - ebay change.
Even tho the turret without ebay would probably kill alot of options like burrow movement vs. mech, oracle opening, dt vs mech and certainly a few others, terrans on TL aren't getting tired in explaining how this change reduces options for sc2. In all their badness, they come up with the idea that spores needed evochamber as well then - as if it was compareable at all (spores eat a drone and in the end cost more minerals due to that, do you want this to be equalized as well?).
Additionally, in order to operate them, TL here and then releases some 30 pages of terran balance whine on the main page. Stuff that every user in the forum would have probably gotten banned for. Also if you follow TL-Staff comments, you can see frequent siding for terran. I guess several zerg/protoss users have already stopped commenting for not being blamed to play a noob race.
For the greatest players of all time event, players of all races have been discounted for one or another reason while most terrans were not. Just look at the reasoning for nestea and MC being behind taeja, while the same obviously didn't happen in the comparison between life and mvp. In the view of most TL users and TL itself (according to their recent releases) terran has been the most disadvantaged race throughout the life of SC2 and at the same time produced the most great players of all time. TL and its community enjoys to complain about BL/Infestor all day until now but has forgotten that SC2 was GomTvT for the majority of its time during states of measurable imbalance. I have never seen anyone defending BL/Infestor in a way that terrans here defend their GomTvT era. And the same guys who fighted for 5 rax reaper openings to stay viable back in the days and 1base marauder-scv all-ins being an intelligent and defendable strategy have the leadership in opinion on TL now.
All this is obvious and measurable bias. TL overall is terran biased.
According to the average TL terran user, protoss is a noob race that should be designed around terran only to fit their needs (no way adjustments happen the other way round, then the whining starts again) and zergs should be fine with being limited to muta/bling as long as terran can dominate every matchup with spamming marines/marauder from 10+ rax without being limited by gas at all (which is the limitation for other races dominating units). Every change to this will be replied with pure badness. I will leave with that, but certainly could write more, lol.
Apart from this I actually wanted to say that Thors should now become strong single target anti air units (with the liberator being there), before I saw your post and had to comment on it. I had this idea already like 2 years ago and shared it here at TL. It would fit the role of thors much better I think. Imo they should rather 1 shot a mutalisk with a slow firerate then damage 8 of them by 20% (also regeneration problem gets reduced then). Also terran gets a counter to BL or protoss air which is not vikings then. The thor vs muta mechanic sucks badly considering the differences that can be created with or without the use of magic box and how much a few thors can hardcounter balls of mutas with some lucky shots that barely happen.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
Yes TL is.
You can see this from most polls that involve small terran tweaks that can be considered nerfs. There is always a big majority of voters against it which does not happen on other races tweak/nerf polls. Just like this turret - ebay change.
Even tho the turret without ebay would probably kill alot of options like burrow movement vs. mech, oracle opening, dt vs mech and certainly a few others, terrans on TL aren't getting tired in explaining how this change reduces options for sc2. In all their badness, they come up with the idea that spores needed evochamber as well then - as if it was compareable at all (spores eat a drone and in the end cost more minerals due to that, do you want this to be equalized as well?).
Additionally, in order to operate them, TL here and then releases some 30 pages of terran balance whine on the main page. Stuff that every user in the forum would have probably gotten banned for. Also if you follow TL-Staff comments, you can see frequent siding for terran. I guess several zerg/protoss users have already stopped commenting for not being blamed to play a noob race.
For the greatest players of all time event, players of all races have been discounted for one or another reason while most terrans were not. Just look at the reasoning for nestea and MC being behind taeja, while the same obviously didn't happen in the comparison between life and mvp. In the view of most TL users and TL itself (according to their recent releases) terran has been the most disadvantaged race throughout the life of SC2 and at the same time produced the most great players of all time. TL and its community enjoys to complain about BL/Infestor all day until now but has forgotten that SC2 was GomTvT for the majority of its time during states of measurable imbalance. I have never seen anyone defending BL/Infestor in a way that terrans here defend their GomTvT era. And the same guys who fighted for 5 rax reaper openings to stay viable back in the days and 1base marauder-scv all-ins being an intelligent and defendable strategy have the leadership in opinion on TL now.
All this is obvious and measurable bias. TL overall is terran biased.
According to the average TL terran user, protoss is a noob race that should be designed around terran only to fit their needs (no way adjustments happen the other way round, then the whining starts again) and zergs should be fine with being limited to muta/bling as long as terran can dominate every matchup with spamming marines/marauder from 10+ rax without being limited by gas at all (which is the limitation for other races dominating units). Every change to this will be replied with pure badness. I will leave with that, but certainly could write more, lol.
Apart from this I actually wanted to say that Thors should now become strong single target anti air units (with the liberator being there), before I saw your post and had to comment on it. I had this idea already like 2 years ago and shared it here at TL. It would fit the role of thors much better I think. Imo they should rather 1 shot a mutalisk with a slow firerate then damage 8 of them by 20% (also regeneration problem gets reduced then). Also terran gets a counter to BL or protoss air which is not vikings then. The thor vs muta mechanic sucks badly considering the differences that can be created with or without the use of magic box and how much a few thors can hardcounter balls of mutas with some lucky shots that barely happen.
I don't disagree with you necessarily but, if the bias is obvious and measurable, why don't you measure it?
I don't disagree with you necessarily but, if the bias is obvious and measurable, why don't you measure it?
I measured it in words. Measurable doesn't necessarily mean in numbers, does it?
Anyway, if you were a terran-player, you would for sure disagree, wouldn't you?
:p
p.s: if you wanna measure it in numbers, then go ahead and compare polls of ebay-turret change and roach - burrow upgrade change for example. Or any other results of suitable/similar polls on small nerfs for race x vs. race terran. Then you get the numbers you desire.
There is not even a single thing hinting at TL not being terran biased, I am afraid. Therefore even terran users had to agree if they grew some balls, lol.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
Yes TL is.
You can see this from most polls that involve small terran tweaks that can be considered nerfs. There is always a big majority of voters against it which does not happen on other races tweak/nerf polls. Just like this turret - ebay change.
Even tho the turret without ebay would probably kill alot of options like burrow movement vs. mech, oracle opening, dt vs mech and certainly a few others, terrans on TL aren't getting tired in explaining how this change reduces options for sc2. In all their badness, they come up with the idea that spores needed evochamber as well then - as if it was compareable at all (spores eat a drone and in the end cost more minerals due to that, do you want this to be equalized as well?).
Additionally, in order to operate them, TL here and then releases some 30 pages of terran balance whine on the main page. Stuff that every user in the forum would have probably gotten banned for. Also if you follow TL-Staff comments, you can see frequent siding for terran. I guess several zerg/protoss users have already stopped commenting for not being blamed to play a noob race.
For the greatest players of all time event, players of all races have been discounted for one or another reason while most terrans were not. Just look at the reasoning for nestea and MC being behind taeja, while the same obviously didn't happen in the comparison between life and mvp. In the view of most TL users and TL itself (according to their recent releases) terran has been the most disadvantaged race throughout the life of SC2 and at the same time produced the most great players of all time. TL and its community enjoys to complain about BL/Infestor all day until now but has forgotten that SC2 was GomTvT for the majority of its time during states of measurable imbalance. I have never seen anyone defending BL/Infestor in a way that terrans here defend their GomTvT era. And the same guys who fighted for 5 rax reaper openings to stay viable back in the days and 1base marauder-scv all-ins being an intelligent and defendable strategy have the leadership in opinion on TL now.
All this is obvious and measurable bias. TL overall is terran biased.
According to the average TL terran user, protoss is a noob race that should be designed around terran only to fit their needs (no way adjustments happen the other way round, then the whining starts again) and zergs should be fine with being limited to muta/bling as long as terran can dominate every matchup with spamming marines/marauder from 10+ rax without being limited by gas at all (which is the limitation for other races dominating units). Every change to this will be replied with pure badness. I will leave with that, but certainly could write more, lol.
Apart from this I actually wanted to say that Thors should now become strong single target anti air units (with the liberator being there), before I saw your post and had to comment on it. I had this idea already like 2 years ago and shared it here at TL. It would fit the role of thors much better I think. Imo they should rather 1 shot a mutalisk with a slow firerate then damage 8 of them by 20% (also regeneration problem gets reduced then). Also terran gets a counter to BL or protoss air which is not vikings then. The thor vs muta mechanic sucks badly considering the differences that can be created with or without the use of magic box and how much a few thors can hardcounter balls of mutas with some lucky shots that barely happen.
On May 22 2015 16:39 Herecomestrouble wrote: You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally
Zerg does need to build bases (at least one more than terran + macro) and queens, and not forget to make injections every ~40 sec in order to keep production. Terran just can spam E button if he forgot to call mules in time and be done with it, but this won't work for Zerg. And Zerg does need to spread creep between those bases (at least) in order to keep his whole army in one place (which is necessary vs. mech). And those bases can easily be harrassed or destroyed (hellions, hellbats, banshees) - and don't you dare to speak about spines/spores - it is just laughable vs ~5 cloaked banshees with +1 attack (at least) or blue-flames hellions/hellbats, who just annihilate all drones in 5 sec if Zerg does not react ASAP. Mech terran in the late game can sacrifice nearly all his SCVs and go full ~190/200 army supply with mules behind, which Zerg can not allow to do. So your whine has no solid ground beneath it.
I think that you are missing his point. The investment required for a tech switch is so high for Terran that it is almost never feasible to do so. The difference between bio and mech is a base full of barracks or factories, as well as the relevant upgrades. The difference between ultras and brood lords is having an ultralisk cavern or a greater spire, because zerg produces all their units from the same structure. Protoss has a similar advantage due to warp gate, though not to as large of a degree.
EDIT: and while the discussion of macro mechanics is more or less irrelevant to this point, I would like to mention the downside of Terran macro. Zerg has the ability to pool larva over time, giving them the ability to rapidly spend the money that has banked up during that time. Protoss is also somewhat more forgiving when players miss production rounds, since they can immediately warp in reinforcements to a battle, which somewhat lessens the pain because enemy reinforcements may not have arrived yet (but this is nullified in PvP). Terran, on the other hand, can never recover the lost opportunity cost of a missed production round. When Terran players miss a round of production, they cannot catch up with a player who is macroing correctly until a battle happens.
I don't think Blizzard should balance around those kinds of failures to begin with, though. Still, play Terran and you'll see that it's not as easy as "drop mules, huge army."
Zerg produces all their units from the same structureS, and we do need many of them, and actually it is 450 minerals per base (hatchery + queen), and you need at least 4 of them to play macro vs. bio terran, and at least 5 to play vs. mech. As for macro: you mix up things (I suppose intentionally), zerg can pool up larva indeed, but to do it he has to make injects every 40 sec and do not forget about it a single time, while terran and protoss can spend their all their energy for mules/busts at one time, and have near the same buff (less for protoss, more for terran). And of course you can queue units up to 5 in your sctructures (and it gives you more time for other things to do), what zerg cannot do. I don't even mention drop/prism harrass posibillity which is absent for zerg at the moment, and flying bases (Inferno Pools say hello).
I have always kinda felt like that but hated to admit it- seems like terran has always been given free pass to balance whine because they are seen as the "hard race" to play hence have the rights to do so.
On May 22 2015 19:36 Klowney wrote: So Terran got an aa unit that Protoss needs, brilliant.
I think Terran does need a unit like the liberator so its feasible that we can build BC's and actually protect them, but I agree with you that Protoss needs better aa, specifically a ground unit. The fact the toss has to put up with only having bluegoon and tickle robot for ground based aa is pretty dumb.
I was hyped as fuck for hots when beta was online, it is not even close to that now I introduced 5 of my friends to starcraft and none of them are playing anymore. We all played up to diamond and master league then it became stressful. This is the game i respect most and i really want to see starcraft become big again but i don't see it happening with subtle changes like these. Because even i don't want to play ladder after losing a few times, heck i don't want to play after a winning spree.
I think they should drastically change protoss warp gate mechanics, terran tech after bio and remove free unit spawning abilities from zerg(boordlord, infestor and swarm host) While it can change the balance immensely, increasing armor or decreasing a units cost is not a big change towards making the game more fun. They can try to balance the game after changing a lot for each race so they at least pull their existing fanbase to check the new stuff out.
On May 22 2015 10:59 woopr wrote: YEA FUCK TERRAN BIO ULTRAS SHOULD BE A FREE WIN
This is some quality posting Oo'
Why so much whinning about balance changes when this is still a beta, and most people posting don't even play it? (myself included). And why on earth is the turret change such a big deal to some? If you terrans lose a few games to stupid Oracles the world won't stop moving. Seriously the overraction is unreal.
On May 22 2015 10:59 woopr wrote: YEA FUCK TERRAN BIO ULTRAS SHOULD BE A FREE WIN
This is some quality posting Oo'
Why so much whinning about balance changes when this is still a beta, and most people posting don't even play it? (myself included). And why on earth is the turret change such a big deal to some? If you terrans lose a few games to stupid Oracles the world won't stop moving. Seriously the overraction is unreal.
Thanks God there are still some adequate people left who can see these rivers of tears out of nothing.
I don't disagree with you necessarily but, if the bias is obvious and measurable, why don't you measure it?
I measured it in words. Measurable doesn't necessarily mean in numbers, does it?
Why yes, yes it does, that's exactly what it means.
I wanted to type out you were wrong in thinking all measurements had to have numbers, but I couldn't think of any great examples, and upon doing research, turns out I was wrong. The key takeaway for me was that just because you can measure something without numbers does not mean you couldn't have a greater measurement of it if you were to find some way to assign numbers to it. There is, of course, something to be said for "if you have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail" and so when "measuring", it would be important not to miss the forest for the trees, but still.
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
Nah, it is just that he is martyring himself and that is bannable by TL rules and standards, he isn't banned because of his last post that I mostly agree with.
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
No. Martyring yourself results in a ban, and that's what he did. It's in the TL Commandments. It has nothing to do with the validity of his claims.
I"m surprised he not permabanned tbh. All of his posts are consistently balance whine or personal attacks.
He isn't perma-banned because his posts make a lot of sense, unlike majority of Terran whine-posts here that are miserably failing to explain why splitting Mech ground and air upgrades is "bad" idea, and when you try to tell them why it should be that way they attack you with stupid design comparisons like "You don't need to make 8 factories as Zerg, lol, that's why we need less upgrades!" which is a complete nonsense and doesn't have anything to do with attack and armor upgrades of both races.
Majority of Terran players here are not even getting the whole picture and why races need to function differently, and are just picking parts of their race and compare them to the parts of enemy race that suits them, or do some other nonsense like comparing SC2 Terran to the Brood War Terran, ignoring all of other differences and changes that happened between these two games and saying how it should work that way.
I don't disagree with you necessarily but, if the bias is obvious and measurable, why don't you measure it?
I measured it in words. Measurable doesn't necessarily mean in numbers, does it?
Why yes, yes it does, that's exactly what it means.
I wanted to type out you were wrong in thinking all measurements had to have numbers, but I couldn't think of any great examples, and upon doing research, turns out I was wrong. The key takeaway for me was that just because you can measure something without numbers does not mean you couldn't have a greater measurement of it if you were to find some way to assign numbers to it. There is, of course, something to be said for "if you have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail" and so when "measuring", it would be important not to miss the forest for the trees, but still.
Yes. It's worth noting that you can measure a thing and then express your results without ever using a number: "Most people in Narnia are fairly happy with the current government" can be an entirely accurate measurement, though as you add more detail the numbers will appear. In this case something like: "We asked a statistically derived cross section of Narnian residents if they were a. unhappy b. fairly unhappy c. neutral d. fairly happy, e. happy with the current government and more than 50% of respondents said d."
It's absolutely clear that LSN didn't attempt to make a measurement of the bias he was perceiving, he hadn't even made a case that it was possible to measure that bias, yet with complete confidence he called the bias "clear and measurable". I suspected he didn't understand the word. He didn't.
Incidentally, props to you for learning. I didn't know that all measurement requires numbers either, I just saw a guy say "I see lots of pro-terran bias on TL" and that clearly isn't measurement.
Honestly it's all entirely pointless as the entire idea of race balance is a distracting farce. If races are reasonably asymmetric and vaguely balanced then all race balance can be done with maps. Race balance is a very very narrow, almost debilitating, view of what balance means and arguing about it on a thread about units and upgrades is pretty much a complete and total waste of time. Something I suspect LSN already knows.
On May 22 2015 22:36 Garsecg wrote: I wanted to type out you were wrong in thinking all measurements had to have numbers, but I couldn't think of any great examples, and upon doing research, turns out I was wrong.
Just want to give credit for this. Don't see it often on TL, well done. Gold star from me:
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
No. Martyring yourself results in a ban, and that's what he did. It's in the TL Commandments. It has nothing to do with the validity of his claims.
It does say a bit about the validity of his claims. Saying that he was martyring himself is a big overstatement and does in fact prove that the ban hammer is easily swung when you have posted posts like the one he had. Martyring yourself is not equal to joking about getting banned or executed. A fair treatment would probably have been a warning if it is such a fragile subject to joke about getting banned.
On the other hand people posting " YEA FUCK TERRAN BIO ULTRAS SHOULD BE A FREE WIN " does not even give a warning? Even though this posts contains explicit language and contributes nothing to the discussion?
On May 23 2015 00:17 IntoTheheart wrote: I wonder how Liberators will interact with the Ultras.
Can't imagine them doing a better job than their cheaper and immune-to-irradiate cousin, the cyclone. Tbh, I'm not sure how the Liberator fits into Terran design at all.
On May 22 2015 22:36 Garsecg wrote: I wanted to type out you were wrong in thinking all measurements had to have numbers, but I couldn't think of any great examples, and upon doing research, turns out I was wrong.
Just want to give credit for this. Don't see it often on TL, well done. Gold star from me:
*
Seconded. We don't have enough of this in the forums...most people will argue the wrong point to their dying breath, even after realizing they are completely wrong.
When they bulldozed the interface without carefully thinking about it, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the complexity of macro, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the early game, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the technology tree, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
(…)
Now I am left with chronic discontent and an arid game, I fail to see that history falters, I still don't want to listen to anything sensible and I prefer to blame my fellow gamers based on their race or style.
In short, the SC2 crew was plagued with a common disease of the ill-named “modernity”: they thought backwards.
(…)
Plagued with the second common disease of “modernity,” short-sightedness, Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
(…)
A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization.
(…)
Short-sighted users shall be jealous of “the shiny tools others get” and will ask Blizzard the same for “their camp,” failing to realize that they're completely falling into the oldest trap on Earth called “divide and rule”. People should instead unite and camp Blizzard's door so they have a playable RTS first. Otherwise, they will only get (1) an even worse game, (2) an even worse competitive scene, (3) an even worse balance.
The “Liberator” sure has a prophetic name. How not to glimpse the very hand of fate in this saving unit? Hopefully it lives up to its name and frees us from the ignorance running rampant for years.
Or no. Chains are better. Blaming Terran players and Zerg adepts and Protoss cheesers and X or Y is so much more fun. Clinging to irrelevant opinions for derisory gains is a brilliant strategy, the natural fruit of the superior minds forming the assembly of Starcraft experts.
On May 23 2015 00:17 IntoTheheart wrote: I wonder how Liberators will interact with the Ultras.
Can't imagine them doing a better job than their cheaper and immune-to-irradiate cousin, the cyclone. Tbh, I'm not sure how the Liberator fits into Terran design at all.
On May 22 2015 22:36 Garsecg wrote: I wanted to type out you were wrong in thinking all measurements had to have numbers, but I couldn't think of any great examples, and upon doing research, turns out I was wrong.
Just want to give credit for this. Don't see it often on TL, well done. Gold star from me:
*
Seconded. We don't have enough of this in the forums...most people will argue the wrong point to their dying breath, even after realizing they are completely wrong.
I don't think that it really solve problems either. Note that most of my current understanding of TvZ comes from the qxc blog.
On May 23 2015 00:23 TheDwf wrote: When they bulldozed the interface without carefully thinking about it, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the complexity of macro, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the early game, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the technology tree, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
(…)
Now I am left with chronic discontent and an arid game, I fail to see that history falters, I still don't want to listen to anything sensible and I prefer to blame my fellow gamers based on their race or style.
In short, the SC2 crew was plagued with a common disease of the ill-named “modernity”: they thought backwards.
(…)
Plagued with the second common disease of “modernity,” short-sightedness, Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
(…)
A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization.
(…)
Short-sighted users shall be jealous of “the shiny tools others get” and will ask Blizzard the same for “their camp,” failing to realize that they're completely falling into the oldest trap on Earth called “divide and rule”. People should instead unite and camp Blizzard's door so they have a playable RTS first. Otherwise, they will only get (1) an even worse game, (2) an even worse competitive scene, (3) an even worse balance.
The “Liberator” sure has a prophetic name. How not to glimpse the very hand of fate in this saving unit? Hopefully it lives up to its name and frees us from the ignorance running rampant for years.
Or no. Chains are better. Blaming Terran players and Zerg adepts and Protoss cheesers and X or Y is so much more fun. Clinging to irrelevant opinions for derisory gains is a brilliant strategy, the natural fruit of the superior minds forming the assembly of Starcraft experts.
On May 23 2015 00:23 TheDwf wrote: When they bulldozed the interface without carefully thinking about it, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the complexity of macro, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the early game, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
When they bulldozed the technology tree, I rejoiced or said nothing. It was just a bunch of buttons, there was nothing to save there. The fun and strategy came from elsewhere.
(…)
Now I am left with chronic discontent and an arid game, I fail to see that history falters, I still don't want to listen to anything sensible and I prefer to blame my fellow gamers based on their race or style.
In short, the SC2 crew was plagued with a common disease of the ill-named “modernity”: they thought backwards.
(…)
Plagued with the second common disease of “modernity,” short-sightedness, Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
(…)
A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization.
(…)
Short-sighted users shall be jealous of “the shiny tools others get” and will ask Blizzard the same for “their camp,” failing to realize that they're completely falling into the oldest trap on Earth called “divide and rule”. People should instead unite and camp Blizzard's door so they have a playable RTS first. Otherwise, they will only get (1) an even worse game, (2) an even worse competitive scene, (3) an even worse balance.
The “Liberator” sure has a prophetic name. How not to glimpse the very hand of fate in this saving unit? Hopefully it lives up to its name and frees us from the ignorance running rampant for years.
Or no. Chains are better. Blaming Terran players and Zerg adepts and Protoss cheesers and X or Y is so much more fun. Clinging to irrelevant opinions for derisory gains is a brilliant strategy, the natural fruit of the superior minds forming the assembly of Starcraft experts.
Sleeping is such a bliss.
Very nice. I don't agree with the bolded part, Sleep isn't a bliss when you are constantly waking up because of the nightmares that you read on these forums. LOL
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
Nah, it is just that he is martyring himself and that is bannable by TL rules and standards, he isn't banned because of his last post that I mostly agree with.
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
No. Martyring yourself results in a ban, and that's what he did. It's in the TL Commandments. It has nothing to do with the validity of his claims.
I"m surprised he not permabanned tbh. All of his posts are consistently balance whine or personal attacks.
He isn't perma-banned because his posts make a lot of sense, unlike majority of Terran whine-posts here that are miserably failing to explain why splitting Mech ground and air upgrades is "bad" idea, and when you try to tell them why it should be that way they attack you with stupid design comparisons like "You don't need to make 8 factories as Zerg, lol, that's why we need less upgrades!" which is a complete nonsense and doesn't have anything to do with attack and armor upgrades of both races.
Majority of Terran players here are not even getting the whole picture and why races need to function differently, and are just picking parts of their race and compare them to the parts of enemy race that suits them, or do some other nonsense like comparing SC2 Terran to the Brood War Terran, ignoring all of other differences and changes that happened between these two games and saying how it should work that way.
Theres a difference with saying "stupid oracles OP shit, blizzard dont want terran to ever win" wich is a balance whine and thus could be argued to saying "TL is full of terrans even mods are terran all terrans are whiners terrans ruin the game" thats just complaining about stuff outside the game, what can you argue about that reasonably?
Its like if I said "all people who play videogames are greasy nerds" theres no way to have a conversation with someone like that? If we count his premise as truth then no terran could ever have an opinion because it would just be "terran whine"
Wich is funny btw, while posters have always argued about how terran always whine no such is commonly said about other races, is almost like an argument people use when they don't have actual points, why try to make a valid.point about the design when you can just call everybody a terran whiner? That should work right?
People are so caught in this racial war, what is the fucking point? What do you gain? At some point the game WILL be balanced but will it be FUN to play? If every body keeps denying changes becase some stupid racial conflict then the game won't go nowhere.
Discuss changes to the game, thats what matters, what is good what is bad, the fact that people talk so much about these changes makes it look that they just care about balance and I'm afraid LotV will just become HotS 2.0
Or we could just talk about TL being a big terran conspiracy, now thats constructive
^ Very good post here.The negativity and racial bias in the community is a real letdown. I think the gaming experience in general would much more benefit from more positive thinking.
Also I really wanna see the new Unit in action.Don´t have beta access yet. Guess I have to grind more ladder games so I get a chance for an Invite.
So Terran stole corsair Mech/structure are just fixs. About geyser, it's about time...... For Roach, i hope Tunneling Claws are T1 too. Otherwise its again a half done deal..... And for last, Missile turret back to normal byt not yet at 75 minerals......
I dont know yet about swarm host but apart from fixing old issues it's just a terran buff.... So LOTV= 2 races game?
Even though Blizzard said that this beta will last far longer than a normal beta, these sort of changes are just simple patches as if the fundamentals of the game are already set in stone. None of the big, necessary design changes like we hoped for. Or, at least, any leeway with what was initially done. Design first; balance later.
Nevertheless, I hope ranked play and a revamp of the menu are coming soon. I hate to agree with many others, but it really does not seem like Blizzard put/is putting much effort into LotV, considering the changes they have made (technically and balance-wise) do not take that much.
Blizzard's actions are so contradictory. They claim a long beta to test things, but they do not really test things to the level of the final expansion.
Please make SC2 a great game with this expansion. Don't have the content attitude that gives us the current "good/decent enough" one.
Probably inbefore getting banned for giving opposition (or maybe being executed by flak??). lol
User was temp banned for this post.
ROFL. This man is prophet.
It confirms TL being terran fan-site. Good job guys.
No. Martyring yourself results in a ban, and that's what he did. It's in the TL Commandments. It has nothing to do with the validity of his claims.
It does say a bit about the validity of his claims. Saying that he was martyring himself is a big overstatement and does in fact prove that the ban hammer is easily swung when you have posted posts like the one he had. Martyring yourself is not equal to joking about getting banned or executed. A fair treatment would probably have been a warning if it is such a fragile subject to joke about getting banned.
On the other hand people posting " YEA FUCK TERRAN BIO ULTRAS SHOULD BE A FREE WIN " does not even give a warning? Even though this posts contains explicit language and contributes nothing to the discussion?
LSN was just temp banned for 2 days by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2010-12-10 21:55:13 and had 350 posts.
Reason: We automatically ban for martyring, posting "inb4 ban" will get you banned 99% of the time
On May 23 2015 00:22 SC2John wrote: Can't imagine them doing a better job than their cheaper and immune-to-irradiate cousin, the cyclone. Tbh, I'm not sure how the Liberator fits into Terran design at all.
Replaces Thors with bio and is imo blizzard's intended solution for bio to deal with lurkers because they don't attack ground units, they attack ground. That means you can kill lurkers in known locations without detection.
On May 23 2015 01:33 purakushi wrote: LotV: The Glorified Balance Patch
Even though Blizzard said that this beta will last far longer than a normal beta, these sort of changes are just simple patches as if the fundamentals of the game are already set in stone. None of the big, necessary design changes like we hoped for. Or, at least, any leeway with what was initially done.
Nevertheless, I hope ranked play and a revamp of the menu are coming soon. I hate to agree with many others, but it really does not seem like Blizzard put/is putting much effort into LotV, considering the changes they have made (technically and balance-wise) do not take that much.
Blizzard's actions are so contradictory. They claim a long beta to test things, but they do not really test things to the level of the final expansion.
Please surprise me.
That's the feeling I get. My feeling is that they're working on Overwatch, HOTS, and Casualstone now so they don't have the internal resources to fix Starcraft's extensive flaws. But I guess I just don't have much faith in Blizzard anymore, the last game they made that I actually respect is Warcraft 3. If Starcraft wasn't such an awesome game I would have forgotten about it and Blizzard years ago.
On May 23 2015 01:04 Lexender wrote: Or we could just talk about TL being a big terran conspiracy, now thats constructive
To be honest, I always thought the majority of the TL staff played protoss. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't think Terrans were marginally more whiny than the other races but it's not new or offensive. I don't know where this TL.net Terran bias theory came from.
In regards to the patch,
I opened stargate in PvT and tried some two and three base carrier to see if I could bait out some liberators, no such luck. They are actually in the game now, yeah?
One Terran built BC's in the late game, and playing against the wormhole thing was pretty fun but the 50 energy recall seems to mean I can take laps around the map at my leisure cleaning up stranded BC's and all the teleporting got fucking ridiculous after a while.
I don't think those two mechanics gel very well, as an initial impression.
On May 23 2015 02:46 robopork wrote: I opened stargate in PvT and tried some two and three base carrier to see if I could bait out some liberators, no such luck. They are actually in the game now, yeah?
One Terran built BC's in the late game, and playing against the wormhole thing was pretty fun but the 50 energy recall seems to mean I can take laps around the map at my leisure cleaning up stranded BC's and all the teleporting got fucking ridiculous after a while.
I don't think those two mechanics gel very well, as an initial impression.
On May 23 2015 03:01 Teoita wrote: So much for a beta with lots of drastic changes...
Where did Blizzard even promise that? I know that hope springs eternal, but it's safer to assume that the beta is longer because the development team is smaller and Blizzard doesn't want the beta to interfere with development of HOTS and other games. And because they want to make sure that the economy change won't wreck the game.
On May 23 2015 03:01 Teoita wrote: So much for a beta with lots of drastic changes...
I can't help but to quote myself from the April 27 balance patch thread. Funny how people said I was talking out of my arse.
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.
On May 22 2015 16:39 Herecomestrouble wrote: You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally
Zerg does need to build bases (at least one more than terran + macro) and queens, and not forget to make injections every ~40 sec in order to keep production. Terran just can spam E button if he forgot to call mules in time and be done with it, but this won't work for Zerg. And Zerg does need to spread creep between those bases (at least) in order to keep his whole army in one place (which is necessary vs. mech). And those bases can easily be harrassed or destroyed (hellions, hellbats, banshees) - and don't you dare to speak about spines/spores - it is just laughable vs ~5 cloaked banshees with +1 attack (at least) or blue-flames hellions/hellbats, who just annihilate all drones in 5 sec if Zerg does not react ASAP. Mech terran in the late game can sacrifice nearly all his SCVs and go full ~190/200 army supply with mules behind, which Zerg can not allow to do. So your whine has no solid ground beneath it.
I think that you are missing his point. The investment required for a tech switch is so high for Terran that it is almost never feasible to do so. The difference between bio and mech is a base full of barracks or factories, as well as the relevant upgrades. The difference between ultras and brood lords is having an ultralisk cavern or a greater spire, because zerg produces all their units from the same structure. Protoss has a similar advantage due to warp gate, though not to as large of a degree.
EDIT: and while the discussion of macro mechanics is more or less irrelevant to this point, I would like to mention the downside of Terran macro. Zerg has the ability to pool larva over time, giving them the ability to rapidly spend the money that has banked up during that time. Protoss is also somewhat more forgiving when players miss production rounds, since they can immediately warp in reinforcements to a battle, which somewhat lessens the pain because enemy reinforcements may not have arrived yet (but this is nullified in PvP). Terran, on the other hand, can never recover the lost opportunity cost of a missed production round. When Terran players miss a round of production, they cannot catch up with a player who is macroing correctly until a battle happens.
I don't think Blizzard should balance around those kinds of failures to begin with, though. Still, play Terran and you'll see that it's not as easy as "drop mules, huge army."
Every race have their strong points, if a terran want the pros points of play protoss or zerg, then play protoss or zerg, the same for zerg or protoss about terran strong points, if u can enum the pros and cons of playing every race, then gona see that every race have their disanvantages to, personally i think terran is the race that after u get good mechanics, you can beat almost anyone.
I don't know what to think anymore. This game needs major changes and I feel like Blizzard is doing some fine tuning. They are doing evolutionary steps, when they need a revolution. The game is in fucking beta. I don't know why they are so afraid of breaking something. Just change stuff and see how it works. If it doesn't work, who cares ? It's beta. Just try ideas. The most uneventful and sad beta in the history... It's almost like they gave up.
I think the new unit sounds stupid. Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add. They definitely don't need any more counters to mutas though. Ling/muta is the only style left in this game that is entertaining.
The turret change is fine. If anything spores should require an evo also.
These small changes are disappointing and don't really fix the problems with the game.
On May 23 2015 06:19 hitpoint wrote:Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add.
TvZ Bio still has absolutely nothing to tech into past tier 2 Medivacs, 5 years after the game's release.
"Complete race."
And it's the best/most entertaining matchup. I don't see the problem. In any case, if the definition of "complete" means having more things to tech to. I think that can be fixed by tweaking existing units that don't see use in TvZ, like Ghosts or BCs.
Additional units like this feel cheap, like the only place they have in the game is to sell the expansion. Adding pointless units just so the expansion can have two new units per race is harmful to the game. The swarm host felt the same way, and the tempest definitely felt the same way. The latter unit is universally hated and generally accepted as a poorly designed unit, while the former almost killed SC2 and is at the very least responsible for a significant decline in viewership/players/interest.
On May 23 2015 06:19 hitpoint wrote:Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add.
TvZ Bio still has absolutely nothing to tech into past tier 2 Medivacs, 5 years after the game's release.
"Complete race."
And it's the best/most entertaining matchup. I don't see the problem. In any case, if the definition of "complete" means having more things to tech to. I think that can be fixed by tweaking existing units that don't see use in TvZ, like Ghosts or BCs.
It is the best/most entertaining MU, but Terran pros are obviously very limited in terms of expressing their creativity when playing bio. There are very, very few cool surprises they can pull out of their hats. The gameplay doesn't really change from the midgame to the lategame, there's just more of it. And look at what they do with LOTV, instead of adding new dimensions and depth to bio play, they just force Terrans out of it by turning the Ultralisk into a brick wall. That's the definition of lack of balls.
Could Ghosts/BCs/Ravens/Reapers be repurposed to pick up the slack? Absolutely, I'd love to see that happen.
But it's becoming very clear that expecting Blizzard to EXPERIMENT during a BETA is foolishly naive.
Additional units like this feel cheap, like the only place they have in the game is to sell the expansion. Adding pointless units just so the expansion can have two new units per race is harmful to the game. The swarm host felt the same way, and the tempest definitely felt the same way. The latter unit is universally hated and generally accepted as a poorly designed unit, while the former almost killed SC2 and is at the very least responsible for a significant decline in viewership/players/interest.
I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
On May 23 2015 06:19 hitpoint wrote: I think the new unit sounds stupid. Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add. They definitely don't need any more counters to mutas though. Ling/muta is the only style left in this game that is entertaining.
The turret change is fine. If anything spores should require an evo also.
These small changes are disappointing and don't really fix the problems with the game.
Well I think you're right that terran doesn't need any new "units" but I could see terran benefiting from a new defensive structure because let's face it, bunkers consuming supply is annoying.
Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
Apparently it is a widely believed fact that TL favours Terran, so why not Blizzard?
I agree that Ground mech and Air upgrades need to be split. I also think it would add to the game if they change the Protoss upgrades so that the choice between armor and shield upgrades have more impact and require thought-investment. As of now, shield upgrades are simply there as a luxury. Some mix of armor upgrades nerf and shield upgrades buff would achieve that, I think, but the details can be worked out by testing.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
On May 23 2015 03:01 Teoita wrote: So much for a beta with lots of drastic changes...
Where did Blizzard even promise that? I know that hope springs eternal, but it's safer to assume that the beta is longer because the development team is smaller and Blizzard doesn't want the beta to interfere with development of HOTS and other games. And because they want to make sure that the economy change won't wreck the game.
That's my reaction to many posts as well. I don't remember such a promise from Blizzard nor do I understand what kind of drastic changes people are imagining. Do people want hero units or dragons around the maps?
No one throws away the works they have refined. Like it or not, Blizzard have balanced this game since it's been out, and the balance is relatively in a good place today compared to when the game first came out. It is silly to think that Blizzard will suddenly throw away the knowledge they've learned so far and start from scratch. Balancing the new units itself may require many trial and errors. Starting worker number change is also a big change whose impact may not be fully known until many months after LOTV is out.
As for the new units - they are required for sales. I hate the redundant units as much as anyone and I wish they just patch the existing game. But unfortunately that is not the world we live in. New units + Campaign are needed for them to sell the boxes for $40 a pop. If you disapprove this, petition for a boycott of LOTV. But then again, I do not expect that to be supported by TL.net.
On May 23 2015 08:11 pure.Wasted wrote: I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
If my memory serves, SH was the most beloved new units of HOTS in this community during its beta testing period. It goes to show a lot.. about the said community.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
I think the cancer mine is definitive proof of this. Not just that they like terran, but that they hate the other races and they want them to suffer.
On May 23 2015 08:11 pure.Wasted wrote: I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
If my memory serves, SH was the most beloved new units of HOTS in this community during its beta testing period. It goes to show a lot.. about the said community.
No I think it shows a lot of how badly designed the other units were.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
Apparently it is a widely believed fact that TL favours Terran, so why not Blizzard?
It's widely believed that Blizzard favors Terran too... except when it comes to mech lol.
On May 23 2015 09:00 usethis2 wrote: I agree that Ground mech and Air upgrades need to be split. I also think it would add to the game if they change the Protoss upgrades so that the choice between armor and shield upgrades have more impact and require thought-investment. As of now, shield upgrades are simply there as a luxury. Some mix of armor upgrades nerf and shield upgrades buff would achieve that, I think, but the details can be worked out by testing.
With adepts having most of their HP tied up in shields and carriers being so powerful, I wouldn't be surprised if the shield upgrade was researched before ground armor in some circumstances.
On May 23 2015 03:01 Teoita wrote: So much for a beta with lots of drastic changes...
Where did Blizzard even promise that? I know that hope springs eternal, but it's safer to assume that the beta is longer because the development team is smaller and Blizzard doesn't want the beta to interfere with development of HOTS and other games. And because they want to make sure that the economy change won't wreck the game.
No one throws away the works they have refined. Like it or not, Blizzard have balanced this game since it's been out, and the balance is relatively in a good place today compared to when the game first came out.
Balancing a game is easy. Making a game that's worthy of spending years to balance, and then making sure it doesn't lose its spark during the balancing process, is the tough part. Whether HOTS is such a game is a very open question.
Some MUs still favor coin-flip openings, some MUs promote turtling and passivity, some MUs do not provide professional players with any room for creativity and feature the same units being used for the last 5 years in the exact same ways. Balancing this game to 50/50 will never solve any of that.
On May 23 2015 09:00 usethis2 wrote: I agree that Ground mech and Air upgrades need to be split. I also think it would add to the game if they change the Protoss upgrades so that the choice between armor and shield upgrades have more impact and require thought-investment. As of now, shield upgrades are simply there as a luxury. Some mix of armor upgrades nerf and shield upgrades buff would achieve that, I think, but the details can be worked out by testing.
With adepts having most of their HP tied up in shields and carriers being so powerful, I wouldn't be surprised if the shield upgrade was researched before ground armor in some circumstances.
QXC was talking to me about this and from what he said he calculated it is apparently still better to research Armor upgrade due to the base armor of 1 - aka you get more total hits out of an adept this way. I think he may be right with this, even with the adept shield upgrade, not just because of the base armor thing but also because you are not pulling back hurt adepts in big fights like you do with blink stalkers, which imo, is probably the only time you want shields first as you preserve the unit's health and can continue to fight with them by the time the rest of the army blinks back.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: I ´m not saying that zerg or protoss are victims and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like that, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: Im not saying that zerg or protoss are unfavored and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like taht, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
Viper buff, Raven nerf.
Actually there haven't been many changes, I'm amazed by that, but there you go, blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.
You say you are not talking about that just after, you talk about that, I guess I just don't understand your point, so I clarify, what its your point? or you don't have one.
I don't even know with this community, I just don't get it anymore.
EDIT: Also the WM wasn't buffed they just reverted a change.
On May 23 2015 06:19 hitpoint wrote:Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add.
TvZ Bio still has absolutely nothing to tech into past tier 2 Medivacs, 5 years after the game's release.
"Complete race."
And it's the best/most entertaining matchup. I don't see the problem. In any case, if the definition of "complete" means having more things to tech to. I think that can be fixed by tweaking existing units that don't see use in TvZ, like Ghosts or BCs.
Additional units like this feel cheap, like the only place they have in the game is to sell the expansion. Adding pointless units just so the expansion can have two new units per race is harmful to the game. The swarm host felt the same way, and the tempest definitely felt the same way. The latter unit is universally hated and generally accepted as a poorly designed unit, while the former almost killed SC2 and is at the very least responsible for a significant decline in viewership/players/interest.
Don't forget the Widow Mine. It isn't a well designed unit either.
And while TvZ is the flagship matchup for SC2, it certainly was better in WOL circa 2011, certainly better. Ling/Bling/Muta vs Marine/Tank/Medivac was infinitely more exciting than Ling/Bling/Muta versus 4M. And Ghosts used to be part of TvZ in 2011. And not just for EMP on Infestors.
On May 23 2015 06:19 hitpoint wrote:Terran is already a complete race imo, there's nothing more to add.
TvZ Bio still has absolutely nothing to tech into past tier 2 Medivacs, 5 years after the game's release.
"Complete race."
And it's the best/most entertaining matchup. I don't see the problem. In any case, if the definition of "complete" means having more things to tech to. I think that can be fixed by tweaking existing units that don't see use in TvZ, like Ghosts or BCs.
Additional units like this feel cheap, like the only place they have in the game is to sell the expansion. Adding pointless units just so the expansion can have two new units per race is harmful to the game. The swarm host felt the same way, and the tempest definitely felt the same way. The latter unit is universally hated and generally accepted as a poorly designed unit, while the former almost killed SC2 and is at the very least responsible for a significant decline in viewership/players/interest.
Don't forget the Widow Mine. It isn't a well designed unit either.
And while TvZ is the flagship matchup for SC2, it certainly was better in WOL circa 2011, certainly better. Ling/Bling/Muta vs Marine/Tank/Medivac was infinitely more exciting than Ling/Bling/Muta versus 4M. And Ghosts used to be part of TvZ in 2011. And not just for EMP on Infestors.
I miss the old days.
And terrans actually transitioned into viking/raven, while zergs transitioned to ultras/broodlords/infestor, the only problem was that broodlord/infestor was too powerful, but it was an amazing MU.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: Im not saying that zerg or protoss are unfavored and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like taht, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
Viper buff, Raven nerf.
Actually there haven't been many changes, I'm amazed by that, but there you go, blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.
You say you are not talking about that just after, you talk about that, I guess I just don't understand your point, so I clarify, what its your point? or you don't have one.
I don't even know with this community, I just don't get it anymore.
I told enum changes that could be considered buff/nerfs for their big impact on the gameplay, not the case on what u told. -Viper buff: Is almost the same situation, thats bcoz zergs still not finding a good solution against mech, and just crushing over and over a ridiculous amount of min and gas, lossing a lot of vipers in the process, and u can see it a lot in the zvmech at proscene. -Raven nerf: Is almost the same situation to, bcoz the pdd duration is the duration of the engage, and doesnt affect much at terran engages, and any terran could be agree on that i guess. And i didnt say in any of my posts something like "blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.", lol, it looks like u r at so defensive position. PD: I´m not defending protoss,zerg or terrans, i just played races per season from which i think is op in the time, now im playing terran, for me is the same if blizz buff more the terran, or nerf heavily and buff other races.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: Im not saying that zerg or protoss are unfavored and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like taht, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
Viper buff, Raven nerf.
Actually there haven't been many changes, I'm amazed by that, but there you go, blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.
You say you are not talking about that just after, you talk about that, I guess I just don't understand your point, so I clarify, what its your point? or you don't have one.
I don't even know with this community, I just don't get it anymore.
I told enum changes that could be considered buff/nerfs for their big impact on the gameplay, not tha case on what u told. -Viper buff: Is almost the same situation, thats bcoz zergs still not finding a good solution against mech, and just crushing over and over a ridiculous amount of min and gas, lossing a lot of vipers in the process, and u can see it a lot in the zvmech at proscene. -Raven nerf: Is almost the same to, bcoz the pdd duration is the duration of the engage, and any terran could be agree on that i guess. And i didnt say in any of my posts something like "blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.", lol, it looks like u r at so defensive position.
You are just being passive agressive, you are just giving the "u mad bro" argument.
Did I came as agressive? I'm sorry not my intention. Of course I'm not saying you said that. So I ask you again.
What IS your point? because you DO have one, you have an opinion because other wise you wouldn't pick changes as being of "big impact" and "no impact" if you didn't. So tell me your point so I can discuss it with you, not because I want to prove you wrong but because thats how meaningful solutions get made, I'm ready to accept my opinion is wrong if you are willing to discuss it with me, other wise just PM so we can stop derailing this post because this post is about discussing LotV balance, not what you, me or anybody else things is blizzard agenda.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: Im not saying that zerg or protoss are unfavored and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like taht, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
Viper buff, Raven nerf.
Actually there haven't been many changes, I'm amazed by that, but there you go, blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.
You say you are not talking about that just after, you talk about that, I guess I just don't understand your point, so I clarify, what its your point? or you don't have one.
I don't even know with this community, I just don't get it anymore.
I told enum changes that could be considered buff/nerfs for their big impact on the gameplay, not tha case on what u told. -Viper buff: Is almost the same situation, thats bcoz zergs still not finding a good solution against mech, and just crushing over and over a ridiculous amount of min and gas, lossing a lot of vipers in the process, and u can see it a lot in the zvmech at proscene. -Raven nerf: Is almost the same to, bcoz the pdd duration is the duration of the engage, and any terran could be agree on that i guess. And i didnt say in any of my posts something like "blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.", lol, it looks like u r at so defensive position.
You are just being passive agressive, you are just giving the "u mad bro" argument.
Did I came as agressive? I'm sorry not my intention. Of course I'm not saying you said that. So I ask you again.
What IS your point? because you DO have one, you have an opinion because other wise you wouldn't pick changes as being of "big impact" and "no impact" if you didn't. So tell me your point so I can discuss it with you, not because I want to prove you wrong but because thats how meaningful solutions get made, I'm ready to accept my opinion is wrong if you are willing to discuss it with me, other wise just PM so we can stop derailing this post because this post is about discussing LotV balance, not what you, me or anybody else things is blizzard agenda.
Saddly u cant discuss with me bcoz I´m not defending protoss,zerg or terran, i just played races per season from which i think is op in the time, now im playing terran, for me is the same if blizz buff more the terran, or nerf heavily and buff other races, like u saw in the post where i just said cold comments. And about LotV my opinion is that their development is so cautious, doing minor changes and adds, just for no hurt sensitiviness of certain people, and not my intention to offense but, of people like you. My hope is that the game dramatically change.
On May 23 2015 08:48 whetherbye wrote: Is it just me, or do other's also get the feeling that Blizzard favors Terran? I'm not sure why I get that feeling, even though the turret and split upgrades is a nerf. Maybe the wide array of units? Although that just means more micro perhaps.
Also, these polls about changes are always mostly positive. I can't remember a time when the disapproval was greater than the approval for a change. Although this time, there was less approval than usual.
All races have almost the same number of units, I thing is a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing, everybody thinks the other races are favored and their own race is the disliked.
Could be true, but even farther of the perception, there is a fact that in the last months was: -Buff hellbat/hellion transformation without upgrade. -Buff Widow mine. -Buff Thors. -Nerf swarm host.
Well this proves my point, yes all these changes to terran well other races got nothing right? picking only the points that serve you, you are just seeing the these things and not all the changes "terran is so strong because of this,all the other changes don't matter"
Exactly my point.
Plus the fact that balance is good, maybe a bit fucked for zerg but thats both against terran and protoss.
Then you can enum what other changes favor protoss and zerg in the last months, and can be considered buffs or nerfs, for their big impact on the gameplay. PD: Im not saying that zerg or protoss are unfavored and are a conspiration to make terrans invincible or somehitng like taht, i just show facts, nothing more nothing less.
Viper buff, Raven nerf.
Actually there haven't been many changes, I'm amazed by that, but there you go, blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.
You say you are not talking about that just after, you talk about that, I guess I just don't understand your point, so I clarify, what its your point? or you don't have one.
I don't even know with this community, I just don't get it anymore.
I told enum changes that could be considered buff/nerfs for their big impact on the gameplay, not tha case on what u told. -Viper buff: Is almost the same situation, thats bcoz zergs still not finding a good solution against mech, and just crushing over and over a ridiculous amount of min and gas, lossing a lot of vipers in the process, and u can see it a lot in the zvmech at proscene. -Raven nerf: Is almost the same to, bcoz the pdd duration is the duration of the engage, and any terran could be agree on that i guess. And i didnt say in any of my posts something like "blizz loves terran then, now you can play ladder and blame your loses on that, or not play because terran.", lol, it looks like u r at so defensive position.
You are just being passive agressive, you are just giving the "u mad bro" argument.
Did I came as agressive? I'm sorry not my intention. Of course I'm not saying you said that. So I ask you again.
What IS your point? because you DO have one, you have an opinion because other wise you wouldn't pick changes as being of "big impact" and "no impact" if you didn't. So tell me your point so I can discuss it with you, not because I want to prove you wrong but because thats how meaningful solutions get made, I'm ready to accept my opinion is wrong if you are willing to discuss it with me, other wise just PM so we can stop derailing this post because this post is about discussing LotV balance, not what you, me or anybody else things is blizzard agenda.
Saddly u cant discuss with me bcoz I´m not defending protoss,zerg or terrans, i just played races per season from which i think is op in the time, now im playing terran, for me is the same if blizz buff more the terran, or nerf heavily and buff other races, like u saw in the post where i just said cold comments. And about LotV my opinion is that their development is so cautious, doing minor changes and adds, just for no hurt sensitiviness of people, and no my intention to offense but, of people like you. My hope is that the game dramatically change.
So thats your opinion of my, I wanted to discuss because thats how big changes get made, a lot of people are so caught in this "blizz loves terran and hates the other races" so they are against changes because of that. And I DO want big changes.
But I won't try to change my image of you we derailed this post enough PM if you want to keep talking.
Also saying no ofense before an offensive sentence doesn't work, I didn't get offended tho I just wanted to keep it clear.
hmm..so I take it the first block is the AA attack with a 1.5 radius, 7 damage and...I think 1 cooldown (I'm assuming that's what "Fraction = 1" means). So 7 dps area attack...seems reasonable.
Second block is the single target ground attack. Which apparently deals 85 + 15 to light?
Seems a tad beefy and fast for only 2 supply though. 3.375 is stim bio/warp prism speed >_>
hmm..so I take it the first block is the AA attack with a 1.5 radius, 7 damage and...I think 1 cooldown (I'm assuming that's what "Fraction = 1" means). So 7 dps area attack...seems reasonable.
Second block is the single target ground attack. Which apparently deals 85 + 15 to light?
15 to light line is commented out ('!--'), so it is probably something they're considering but isn't implemented.
On May 23 2015 14:09 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: hmm..so I take it the first block is the AA attack with a 1.5 radius, 7 damage and...I think 1 cooldown (I'm assuming that's what "Fraction = 1" means). So 7 dps area attack...seems reasonable.
<AreaArray Radius="1.5" Fraction="1"/>
Fraction isn`t attack speed, it`s part of damage that going to area. For example <AreaArray Radius="1.5" Fraction="0,5"/> means that main target get 7 damage and units in 1,5 area get 3,5 damage.
Attack speed is located in "weapon" data section. We are now talking about effect.
Also we need to take into account that it can has several missiles launched at once. That data also located in "weapon" section.
On May 23 2015 14:09 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: hmm..so I take it the first block is the AA attack with a 1.5 radius, 7 damage and...I think 1 cooldown (I'm assuming that's what "Fraction = 1" means). So 7 dps area attack...seems reasonable.
<AreaArray Radius="1.5" Fraction="1"/>
Fraction isn`t attack speed, it`s part of damage that going to area. For example <AreaArray Radius="1.5" Fraction="0,5"/> means that main target get 7 damage and units in 1,5 area get 3,5 damage.
Attack speed is located in "weapon" data section. We are now talking about effect.
Also we need to take into account that it can has several missiles launched at once. That data also located in "weapon" section.
Multi-shots with AOE is a sure way to bring huge performance hits
Ground upgrade is at Starport Tech Lab, requires an Armory, and costs 200/200.
The ground shot is absolutely devastating (as previously listed, 85 damage). However, the Liberator can only hit targets inside a red circle (which you place when you send it into 'siege mode'). If a target is outside that circle, the Liberator can do nothing about it. It also can't attack air units in siege mode (or move). The morph/unmorph times are similar as for Siege Tanks, possibly even a bit slower.
They could be very, very powerful when sieging ground to control small chokes/ramps, especially if you already had air control.
Their siege damage is basically the opposite of the Siege Tank's damage (low damage + large splash vs very high damage + no splash), so there are definitely times where they would be useful.
On May 23 2015 15:05 dcemuser wrote: Ground upgrade is at Starport Tech Lab, requires an Armory, and costs 200/200.
The ground shot is absolutely devastating (as previously listed, 85 damage). However, the Liberator can only hit targets inside a red circle (which you place when you send it into 'siege mode'). If a target is outside that circle, the Liberator can do nothing about it. It also can't attack air units in siege mode (or move). The morph/unmorph times are similar as for Siege Tanks, possibly even a bit slower.
They could be very, very powerful when sieging ground to control small chokes/ramps, especially if you already had air control.
Their siege damage is basically the opposite of the Siege Tank's damage (low damage + large splash vs very high damage + no splash), so there are definitely times where they would be useful.
is it possible to harras mineral lines from "nonground" places in lategame? or even just simply focus hatch/nexus/cc with 85dmg?
could u please write movespeed / requirements / attackspeed / range? in both modes.
On May 22 2015 15:39 Bannt wrote: I don't understand why they insist on having split upgrades. It's just frustrating as a terran user and makes it difficult to transition to other tech effectively.
So if zerg has to choose whether to upgrade either melee, or ranged, or air tech - then it is ok. If terran has to choose whether to upgrade either bio, or ground, or air tech - it is OMG UNFAIR IMBALANCED. Nice.
P.S. I don't see a single terran player's ban for 'balance whining', which I got banned for when swarmhosts got nerfed. Is teamliquid terran fan-site?
You're clueless, Zergs don't need to build 8 barracks + addons to go bio nor 8 factories + addons to go mech, these buildings cost money and gas JUST TO GET THEM! and they can be killed ocationally, transitions do not exist if we are real unless you open slight bio (let's say 3 rack) and then go mech or vise versa, but that's not really all that great, its really down to the wire.
Mech in sc2 is not like Brood War, BW mech had their upgrades divided because ground mech had a strong kit, Vultures which are like hellions except they can do more damage, cost less are faster and the most important part they can deploy 3 spider mines (similar to Widow mines except they don't hit air nor workers, only ground units) which requiered not only a lot of multitask to micro (move a mech army deploy mines or just as a harass unit, since it was the most iconic unit in the game because of its micro potential) and it also helped to cover flanks, something KEY that sc2 mech does not have and that's why everyone calls mech ¨turtle mech¨ because without something to cover your flank mech always gets swallowed by the fast/ strongly responsive/ easy to move / control units that Sc2 has nowadays
And that's not all! BW had Goliaths, mid tier units that had an Anti air attack! unlike every sc2 mech unit (don't even dare to name the Thor, the Thor is like a big Marauder that shoots up but not even decently, the damage is bad the unit takes ages to build it has 0 micro potential because it also moves slow, it's horrible and no answer to air, especially not vs protoss air since they are not ¨bio-light¨ like mutas or whatever the designation is for them) Goliaths had lot of micro involved they were numerous and simple to transition since you already had the factories and they were well rounded vs ground too unlike thors which are half ass vs everything, zerglings own them so bad, just like Queens own Battlecruisers.
That's not all! Tanks were badass, and made tons of damage, the most Iconic Terran unit which now is just in some weird spot, (i would fix it by giving it a faster attack speed ratio, maybe take like 10% damage away but give 40-50% extra attack speed) the unit simply attacks too slow for what the mechanics are on this modern ages, sc2 units respond super fast, move fast and they are smart about what they target, yet the tank gets like no time to do damage nor can be repositioned (don't bring medivacs they are not there to move tanks around on a 200vs200 battle, it's just wasted effort and... ofcrs... supply on medivacs like lol wtf you want medivacs for on a mech army? rofl maybe to drop hellbats but that's just about it, and they can't do both things at the same time can they?) they can land 2 shots if lucky before they die.
Sc2 mech is a combination of Air+ Ground, unless you are pretty all in and just rallying units across the map and killing your enemy with them (which is not that often and considered cheese) you always need Starport units such as the Viking, Raven or the Banshee
Splitting the upgrades just allows me to see that the people in charge of these type of decitions don't play nor watch their own game, maybe they're thinking about Heroes a bit too much.
Well said. When it comes to ability to tech switch it's Zerg >>>>>>>> Protoss >>>> Terran.
On May 23 2015 15:04 -NegativeZero- wrote: wow, that model is pretty much a valkyrie
yep... And the AA is pretty much a valkyrie as well.
So it's a valkyrie that can transform into a flying siege tank?
I find it a bit lame how they take BW units back into the third iteration of sc2.... Are they running out of ideas? :/
Well Hots basically added the spider mine, fire bat, gave the zerg disruption web and legacy is bringing back lurker, Valkyrie, Stasis, and another version of storm. I would say that their problem is more they don't listen rather than they run out of ideas. Plenty of well thought ideas on the forums/TL/reddit but it seems they don't want to try them even if they are better than what they came up with.
On May 23 2015 08:11 pure.Wasted wrote: I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
If my memory serves, SH was the most beloved new units of HOTS in this community during its beta testing period. It goes to show a lot.. about the said community.
To be fair, the abomination called Warhound drew alot of attention away from the Swarmhost.
It's AG cooldown is 1.14 according to one of the pics. With a crazy range 15 >.>
this thing seems way too good for only 2 supply.
Are we crazy? 74 DPS as antiground in 15 range for 150/150/2?
And people really blames at Tempests?
How OP do they want terran to be with this numbers for Liberators and the power of Cyclones?
That damage values can't be realistic.The max damage I could accept would be some Tempest-like attack for that costs. Tempests are annoying as a cheese unit, I can't imagine this...
You simply go for a Banshee pressure with that thing, and it is going to be impossible to stop it.
On May 23 2015 08:11 pure.Wasted wrote: I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
If my memory serves, SH was the most beloved new units of HOTS in this community during its beta testing period. It goes to show a lot.. about the said community.
To be fair, the abomination called Warhound drew alot of attention away from the Swarmhost.
Swarm Host was pretty good in the beta because most of the people used them aggressively, sieging enemy bases or just pushing directly into enemy with a lot of Zerglings, Roaches, Hydras and Swarm Hosts. It is much later that people figured out turtle Swarm Host style which was horrible but sadly easier to execute and really strong, and that's the point where everyone started to call unit terrible.
About Liberator, I am not too worried about numbers as they can tweak them, but the design is worrying. I mean, it basically is half Valkyrie half Siege Tank(kind of) with even higher range than Siege Tank. I don't know why they insist on these high range units. Having Thors, Siege Tanks, Liberators, Vikings and Ravens as your composition pretty much just deflects your opponent for ever wanting to come close to you. They also might counter Siege Tanks in TvT, the only match up where Siege Tanks are mandatory and still used in every game.
On May 23 2015 08:11 pure.Wasted wrote: I agree with most of this, except the Swarm Host thing. I mean, obviously it was designed and implemented poorly, but I don't think that the idea is uninspired/unsalvageable. Unlike the Tempest which is just slow-moving non-responsive trash.
If my memory serves, SH was the most beloved new units of HOTS in this community during its beta testing period. It goes to show a lot.. about the said community.
To be fair, the abomination called Warhound drew alot of attention away from the Swarmhost.
Swarm Host was pretty good in the beta because most of the people used them aggressively, sieging enemy bases or just pushing directly into enemy with a lot of Zerglings, Roaches, Hydras and Swarm Hosts. It is much later that people figured out turtle Swarm Host style which was horrible but sadly easier to execute and really strong, and that's the point where everyone started to call unit terrible.
About Liberator, I am not too worried about numbers as they can tweak them, but the design is worrying. I mean, it basically is half Valkyrie half Siege Tank(kind of) with even higher range than Siege Tank. I don't know why they insist on these high range units. Having Thors, Siege Tanks, Liberators, Vikings and Ravens as your composition pretty much just deflects your opponent for ever wanting to come close to you. They also might counter Siege Tanks in TvT, the only match up where Siege Tanks are mandatory and still used in every game.
Liberator:
Relatively cheap and masseable (1.5 muta cost, 2 supply) Tanky.
AA mode: Splash damage, low damage, big area, slow fire. Decent concept, but it might be too strong vs other air units, considering the AoE, massability, and HP of the unit.
AG mode: Highest DPS in-game (75DPS!), very fast attack, 15 range, no AoE. For the same cost of a tank you get a ton of DPS without AoE (approximatively, like 8 tempests), that allows to 1-shot most fragile units (marines, hydras, sentries, templars, reapers, WidowMines, zerglings, banes) and 2 shot almost all ground units: Stalkers, Adepts, Zealots, Marauders, Ghosts, Tanks, Cyclones, Roaches, Ravagers, Infestors, SwarmHosts...
Antiground makes 0 sense to me. If you can have a unit like that for 150/150, sure the Tempest can be buffed without the typical complaints we get at it.
So for 150/150/2, you get:
- discussable AA strength, comparing it to a Thor. But focused in micro. Not a bad concept: interesting interactions,speed, low damage and low fire rate= based on possible micro plays and continous control.
- AntiGround mechanic that is 8 times stronger than a Tempest. Seems a bad idea even before throwing it ingame.
On May 23 2015 07:11 Espers wrote: any in-game preview of the liberator somewhere?
YES! I did some digging around (it took me a while) and found some in game shots, that had me a bit concerned about the overall effectiveness of the unit. The design of the unit is pretty sexy, but I'm concerned that dps will end up being too low. Volleys of only three missiles make the character of the unit appear kind of weak. I'm not sure what the actual numbers amount to for damage itself, but I imagined volleys of 5-6 at least.
@JCoto I know and agree with everything but it is just a Blizzard policy to release something idiotic and imbalanced to be tested and then nerf it to the ground later(Ravagers also comes to mind). The thing is, even with like 5 Nerfs that it should get, upping the supply and cost, reducing damage for AtG, reducing movement speed and maybe health, it is still stupidly designed unit.
People complain about these long ranged units that are almost risk-free, like Swarm Hosts and Tempests, and then they add something like this to Terran as well.
On May 23 2015 19:25 Ramiz1989 wrote: @JCoto I know and agree with everything but it is just a Blizzard policy to release something idiotic and imbalanced to be tested and then nerf it to the ground later(Ravagers also comes to mind). The thing is, even with like 5 Nerfs that it should get, upping the supply and cost, reducing damage for AtG, reducing movement speed and maybe health, it is still stupidly designed unit.
People complain about these long ranged units that are almost risk-free, like Swarm Hosts and Tempests, and then they add something like this to Terran as well.
I think that some Siege units, long range, low risk like Tempets, can be balanced and relatively if they are very very damage inefficient, used as a soft type of control to snipe some important units (casters, capital units, siege units). However, when they become broken and very damaging (SwarmHost, now Liberator), this becomes obviously abusable.
Fun think is that tempests cost 300/200/4 and are Fleet beacon (very lategame) tech, when Liberator is just starport tech, costs only 25 more gas than a Siege tank and it's masseable, mobile and relatively tanky.
So, where did the Liberator data and ingame screenshots come from? I just started up the Beta and there has not changed anything :/ Still 1700 gas, still no liberator, and my roaches still move when I have burrow researched.
You have to consider that AG attacks only work within a small preselected area, and if you want to change that area, you have to unsiege and resiege (which will cost you at least 5 seconds).
Their ground attack is interesting because it is so powerful yet so limited.
this beta seems to be going from bad to worse. No flame, just an honest opinion. They started by trying some interesting stuff like the Ravager and econ changes but now they are toning it back to boring HotS style.
Lol, just remove the tempest, since the beginning, blizzard has removed the tempest splash, range, dmg and speed... just to give all of that together to a unit that costs almost half it's price and tech requirement. tempests staying in the game will only make protoss players cry when they see the liberator in action.
Swarm Host was pretty good in the beta because most of the people used them aggressively, sieging enemy bases or just pushing directly into enemy with a lot of Zerglings, Roaches, Hydras and Swarm Hosts. It is much later that people figured out turtle Swarm Host style which was horrible but sadly easier to execute and really strong, and that's the point where everyone started to call unit terrible.
Dno, I found it extremely obvious to tell that the only thing you could do as mech vs Swarm Host was to turtle, which effectively would stale the games. On the bnet forums, lots of people were complaning about them, and one Blizzard dev said something on the lines of "People aren't using SH the way we want them too, but let's wait and see".
Swarm Host was pretty good in the beta because most of the people used them aggressively, sieging enemy bases or just pushing directly into enemy with a lot of Zerglings, Roaches, Hydras and Swarm Hosts. It is much later that people figured out turtle Swarm Host style which was horrible but sadly easier to execute and really strong, and that's the point where everyone started to call unit terrible.
Dno, I found it extremely obvious to tell that the only thing you could do as mech vs Swarm Host was to turtle, which effectively would stale the games. On the bnet forums, lots of people were complaning about them, and one Blizzard dev said something on the lines of "People aren't using SH the way we want them too, but let's wait and see".
I am pretty positive from tons of Beta games I was watching that they were using like Blizzard wanted to, but later figured out that it isn't the optimal way.
On May 23 2015 19:49 dcemuser wrote: You have to consider that AG attacks only work within a small preselected area, and if you want to change that area, you have to unsiege and resiege (which will cost you at least 5 seconds).
Their ground attack is interesting because it is so powerful yet so limited.
"Small" not at at all. It is not limited by area at all, covers perfectly chokes and ramps, and it's 15 range. The unit costs very cheap for what it can do
On May 23 2015 20:19 rpgalon wrote: Lol, just remove the tempest, since the beginning, blizzard has removed the tempest splash, range, dmg and speed... just to give all of that together to a unit that costs almost half it's price and tech requirement. tempests staying in the game will only make protoss players cry when they see the liberator in action.
Well, tempests are an option worth considering if Liberator stay in the game because it will be the only air unit that can attack them for safe distance at low risk, considering how strong terran AA is. Tempests staying in the game is the only way to avoid Protoss "cry"(with good reason though) because we won't have an answer to an obviously broken unit.
Consider that on AG, Liberators have the DPS of 7-8 StimMarines, without considerig upgrades (damage scaling on upgrades for LIberator could be beastly).Liberators have 15 range and 2 supply.
So for 150/150, you can invest a part of you extra gas (bio tends to float gas) to get extra DPS with less supply, and have more range and fairly more DPS than Vikingss to deal with Protoss.
Let's play a little quiz:
Bio + Liberator: How do you snipe Liberators?
- Blink on top?
rekt by MMMM, + AG LIberator damage.
- Storms?
Not enough range, Liberator 1-shots templars.
-Skytoss?
Phoenix and VoidRays are short range, and will be wasted by MMMM; what's more, Liberators have the potential to deal with them in straigth air battles. Voidrays move slow and will take time to arrive, LIberators can just move.
Then it's about Tempests or Carriers, and interceptors just die to Bio without dealing damage.
Tempest is the only answer.
A reason for Tempest to exist is Liberator range for AG. And just to note:
Tempest range:15, 9 DPS, both ground and air.
Liberator range: 15, 75 DPS, ground only in an area. You keep it behind bio, and it will add the DPS of 8 marines for only 2 supply.
Liberator is quite possible the most imbalanced unit they've ever added to this game. More imbalanced than the Warhound. Someone smoked crack when he came up with the damage numbers for that thing. Terran can scan and just waste everything ground based in a 15 range bubble in an instant.
I always felt like the Siege Tank should've been the be all, end all of siege range. Not necessarily because Terran bias (okay, maybe a little), but it honestly felt like a good balance of damage output and range.
Tempests felt like a cheap knockoff of a Brood Lord, with better range, slight AA capability, piss-poor damage output and agonizingly slow speed; the flying aspect alone guaranteed that it was going to be a boring siege unit, since it could be virtually uncontested while fitting snugly into a Protoss deathball.
Swarm hosts were absolutely broken in terms of range; it was unfun to try to kill something two screens away while you contended with their tangible glass cannon byproducts. Now they've become too specialized and are overly vulnerable, sacrificing army value for half of its existence.
Lurkers look cool because, despite their shorter range, they can mince armies very well should any fall into their range. It operates under Hellion splash logic (which is based on the old BW Lurker logic), but the burrow means there's more likelihood of being able to optimizing the line splash if properly applied (whereas Hellions just tended to die when trying to get up close and personal).
All of the capital ships are fine in terms of range; Carriers and Brood Lords have a relative range of 9, while the Battlecruiser has the Yamato Cannon. Shame they're kind of useless in small numbers; not very intimidating for capital ships.
The point is, trying to extend a unit's range beyond 13 is usually asking for trouble, since it means the other variables have to be adjusted so extremely as to make it sufficiently vulnerable that the range becomes a liability in balancing the unit in the first place. The Tempest had lots of this trouble during the HotS beta, and the Swarm Host is now floundering to find itself again with its new changes.
New Carriers also belong to the "Wtf?" category with their new ability as they can send Interceptors and fly back to base or be recalled with Mothership core, but at least Carriers are huge investment and Interceptors can easily be killed with Widow Mines, Parasitic Bomb, Fungal.
On May 23 2015 21:47 xyzz wrote: Liberator is quite possible the most imbalanced unit they've ever added to this game. More imbalanced than the Warhound. Someone smoked crack when he came up with the damage numbers for that thing. Terran can scan and just waste everything ground based in a 15 range bubble in an instant.
That can be changed to be balanced, it's not a big concern right now in my opinion. What's worrying is the design of the unit, it will be a turtle-dream units for mech player, I don't even know how you are supposed to get through a ramp or a narrow path against this, tanks in the ground and Liberator in the air, nothing can come through. Unless the maps are drastically more open I am afraid game will become a turtle fest.
The Guardian Idea by IeZaeL was so much more interesting
On May 23 2015 21:47 xyzz wrote: Liberator is quite possible the most imbalanced unit they've ever added to this game. More imbalanced than the Warhound. Someone smoked crack when he came up with the damage numbers for that thing. Terran can scan and just waste everything ground based in a 15 range bubble in an instant.
That can be changed to be balanced, it's not a big concern right now in my opinion. What's worrying is the design of the unit, it will be a turtle-dream units for mech player, I don't even know how you are supposed to get through a ramp or a narrow path against this, tanks in the ground and Liberator in the air, nothing can come through. Unless the maps are drastically more open I am afraid game will become a turtle fest.
It's not a turtle fest when nobody can play ground vs. that unit. How could you possibly hope to trade evenly. Just two or three Liberators in a normal mech army will swing the DPS balance so wildly in the Terran's favour that everyone will go broke against it. It'll be mech vs. air every single time. Warpgates fixed, since gateway units can't be used.
Later on we'll probably have to witness some 'oh lol' moments when a dozen Liberators one shot Nexuses, Hatcheries etc.
On May 23 2015 21:47 xyzz wrote: I don't even know how you are supposed to get through a ramp or a narrow path against this, tanks in the ground and Liberator in the air, nothing can come through.
blink, cliff-walk, warp prisms, medivac drops, shades, invincible nydus worms and air units in general to name a few. unfortunately sc2 has a ton of units that don't care about the terrain.
alternatively: you stay the fuck away from that ramp and punish your opponent for overdefending a certain location, either by outexpanding them or attacking another location.
in bw you could not get up a ramp defended by 5 tanks either. at least not without ridiculous losses. but you did not have to.
On May 23 2015 21:47 xyzz wrote: Liberator is quite possible the most imbalanced unit they've ever added to this game. More imbalanced than the Warhound. Someone smoked crack when he came up with the damage numbers for that thing. Terran can scan and just waste everything ground based in a 15 range bubble in an instant.
That can be changed to be balanced, it's not a big concern right now in my opinion. What's worrying is the design of the unit, it will be a turtle-dream units for mech player, I don't even know how you are supposed to get through a ramp or a narrow path against this, tanks in the ground and Liberator in the air, nothing can come through. Unless the maps are drastically more open I am afraid game will become a turtle fest.
It's not a turtle fest when nobody can play ground vs. that unit. How could you possibly even hope to trade evenly. Even two or three Liberators in a normal mech army will swing the DPS balance so wildly in the Terran's favour that everyone will go broke against it. It'll be mech vs. air every single time.
Well, for ZvT:
zerg full air army is already very bad even with a 12k bank vs mech so that's not an option. The only possible composition will be hydra lurker viper, lots of static D and wait until terrans moves out (which he won't do before a long time). Massive switch to muta will no longer be an option and as thor will not be needed anymore, it will allows terran to go safely full liberator/tank without having to worry about if zerg is opening muta or Roach.
TvT... bio is dead.
PvT : Should be okay, between immortal, disruptor, carrier and storm, with warp prism harass, they should have some option against mech.
On May 23 2015 21:47 xyzz wrote: I don't even know how you are supposed to get through a ramp or a narrow path against this, tanks in the ground and Liberator in the air, nothing can come through.
blink, cliff-walk, warp prisms, medivac drops, shades, invincible nydus worms and air units in general to name a few. unfortunately sc2 has a ton of units that don't care about the terrain.
alternatively: you stay the fuck away from that ramp and punish your opponent for overdefending a certain location, either by outexpanding them or attacking another location.
in bw you could not get up a ramp defended by 5 tanks either. at least not without ridiculous losses. but you did not have to.
Pure terran bias.
The big difference of that units is that they don't have 75DPS in 15 range each one ofr 150/150/2, and most of them don't even attack air. And even if you get units that can attack, they will die in 1-2 shots from liberators. And liberators shot very fast for the damage they deal (at the same speed than a stalker I think).
A liberator has the same attack than 7-8 stimmed marines at 15 range. It will 2 shot almost all ground units except lategame ones (Thor, Colossus, Ultra), which have no to poor AA capabilities and usually need support to work.
Raw data indicates that in an engagement, a Liberator can take at least 3 stalkers easily, 1v1. Add MMMM to the recipe and you can't simply approach with any unit. Blinking won't work since even without support, Liberators themselves can beat stalkers 1v1 and 1v2, not even considering range.
Colossus, Warp prisms, Medivac drops and Adepts and Nydus have no possibility to get into a MMMM + Liberator army, and what's more, they don't shoot up.
Most of the things you can use is hardcountered by either Liberators or bio, making Liberators the perfect complement in many matchups since they add the DPS of 8 marines in 2 supply. What's more, it is placed at the same level of tech than banshees. So Terrans are just going to YOLO on a Liberator tactic, sniping queens in 2 shots and killing drones at double speed than banshees in 15 range for only 50 more gas .
Let's take a look at units you can use to counter Liberators:
Shit counters: - Hydralisks (1 shot by Liberators and wrecked by MMMM) - Stalkers (2 shot by Liberators and wrecked by MMMM), - Mutalisks (hardcountered by Liberator AA, Marines, Mines and Thors), - Phoenixes (hardcountered by Liberator AA, Marines, Mines, Ghost EMP and Thors) - VoidRays (hardcountered by Marines, Mines, Ghost EMP and Vikings because of speed) - Tempest (hardcountered by Raven PDD, zero combat efficiency, slower than Liberators. Liberators can just move out without being touched since they are faster! - Carrier (hardcountered by Liberator AA [interceptors], marines, mines, Ghost EMP) - Queens (2 shot by Liberators, shit vs Bio or almost every unit that can shot Queens back)
"Viable" counters:
- Corruptor. Tanky, high armor, will resist Marines and Liberator AA. But they are slow, and short ranged. Liberators can just move out without being touched since they are faster! However, Viking/Liberator/Raven will simply destroy any air compo the Zerg can throw at them
- Vipers . With double parasitic bomb, Zerg could snipe Liberators that are clumped. However with 15 Range and being static Terran has an easy time pre-spliting, and Parasitic bomb range is shorter (10) so it is predictacble to be expecting Vipers flanking.
TL held its own contest for the terran unit with some simply amazing and real progressiv ideas and all blizzard comes up with is a rehashed version of the valkyrie with stats so absurd that it real doesn't need any testing.
I think the Liberator is supposed to: 1) Put a stop to Mass Raven shenanigans in TvT. 2) Put a stop to never ending Tank Wars. 3) Be able to counter Mass Carriers that many Terrans have complained about in LotV. 4) Be able to counter Mass Mutas, in a more secure and cost efficient way. Allowing for more strats from Terran to come to fruition other than: Neverending aggression so Mass Muta never happen or have an entire Mech army designed to kill Mutalisks (Not Siege Tank focused.) 5) Put an end to TvP death balls from Protoss and is an answer for lategame TvP. Protoss will have to divide their army up in chunks and attack multiple fronts, since a singular attack would be completely shut down, simply by 3 of these Liberators targeting a dedicated area. 6) I think they're still stuck in the past and want to put an end to mass burrowed Swarm Hosts in an area. (Possible buff to Swarm Host in future.)
Obviously I don't expect the right tweaking right from the start and I do think it puts even more identity crisis on the Thor, something that might be fixed in a later patch to make it something other than anti air focused. But I think it's supposed to 'liberate' Terran.
On May 23 2015 23:40 ejozl wrote: I think the Liberator is supposed to: 1) Put a stop to Mass Raven shenanigans in TvT. 2) Put a stop to never ending Tank Wars. 3) Be able to counter Mass Carriers that many Terrans have complained about in LotV. 4) Be able to counter Mass Mutas, in a more secure and cost efficient way. Allowing for more strats from Terran to come to fruition other than: Neverending aggression so Mass Muta never happen or have an entire Mech army designed to kill Mutalisks (Not Siege Tank focused.) 5) Put an end to TvP death balls from Protoss and is an answer for lategame TvP. Protoss will have to divide their army up in chunks and attack multiple fronts, since a singular attack would be completely shut down, simply by 3 of these Liberators targeting a dedicated area. 6) I think they're still stuck in the past and want to put an end to mass burrowed Swarm Hosts in an area. (Possible buff to Swarm Host in future.)
Obviously I don't expect the right tweaking right from the start and I do think it puts even more identity crisis on the Thor, something that might be fixed in a later patch to make it something other than anti air focused. But I think it's supposed to 'liberate' Terran.
Unfortunely you're wrong. The TL users, experts in talking about ANYTHING DESIGN, already said that the unit sucks.
As I said elsewhere, we should join them to play Grey Goo or Starbow.
for what it does, I think the liberator has to be 3 supply and need tech lab.... reactored 2 supply liberator will just break the game with it's AA splash and siege range with stupid DPS, even the cyclone is 3 supply....
On May 23 2015 23:40 ejozl wrote: I think the Liberator is supposed to: 1) Put a stop to Mass Raven shenanigans in TvT. 2) Put a stop to never ending Tank Wars. 3) Be able to counter Mass Carriers that many Terrans have complained about in LotV. 4) Be able to counter Mass Mutas, in a more secure and cost efficient way. Allowing for more strats from Terran to come to fruition other than: Neverending aggression so Mass Muta never happen or have an entire Mech army designed to kill Mutalisks (Not Siege Tank focused.) 5) Put an end to TvP death balls from Protoss and is an answer for lategame TvP. Protoss will have to divide their army up in chunks and attack multiple fronts, since a singular attack would be completely shut down, simply by 3 of these Liberators targeting a dedicated area. 6) I think they're still stuck in the past and want to put an end to mass burrowed Swarm Hosts in an area. (Possible buff to Swarm Host in future.)
Obviously I don't expect the right tweaking right from the start and I do think it puts even more identity crisis on the Thor, something that might be fixed in a later patch to make it something other than anti air focused. But I think it's supposed to 'liberate' Terran.
That is okay, specially because in the AntiAir department, the Liberator seems very balanced and the design is interesting, it's a micro friendly unit to deal with problematic air masses.
But as an Antiground, the stats are stupidly broken. Give other races a counter to 15 Range 75 DPS unit at the same price/tech level and supply cost. Because if not, MMMM + Liberator is impossible to win against. If a race acumulates a ton of supply efficient, cheap, replaceable units while others don't, there is going to be problems.
Liberators are even more efficient supply-wise than MMMM vs ground units. 150/150/2, 75DPS 15 range, 2 shot most ground units and same shooting speed than them. Mate, just basic maths. No sense. Fun to see that Mech is starting to bank extreme range/siege units that have a very complicated counterplay. Flying Siege Tank, Cyclone, Liberator... Fun point, the Siege function of Liberator overlaps a lot.
Having a "Valkirye 2.0" with micro possibilities and some extra mechanic is okay, but please, think of the extra mechanic.
I think that if they wanted to buff mech/ terran antiground, there was very obvious ways before introducing a 100 damage sniper that shoots as fast as a stalker.
-Reducing banshee supply to 2 and increasing their speed/acceleration and microability. - Buffin Vikings in ground mode. - Nerf ravens to 3 supply. - Introduce the liberator Antiground mechanic after this changes, with the same cost of Cylcones.
EDIT: The Terran bias is strarting to become strong after I read all this forum page.
On May 23 2015 23:40 ejozl wrote: I think the Liberator is supposed to: 1) Put a stop to Mass Raven shenanigans in TvT. 2) Put a stop to never ending Tank Wars. 3) Be able to counter Mass Carriers that many Terrans have complained about in LotV. 4) Be able to counter Mass Mutas, in a more secure and cost efficient way. Allowing for more strats from Terran to come to fruition other than: Neverending aggression so Mass Muta never happen or have an entire Mech army designed to kill Mutalisks (Not Siege Tank focused.) 5) Put an end to TvP death balls from Protoss and is an answer for lategame TvP. Protoss will have to divide their army up in chunks and attack multiple fronts, since a singular attack would be completely shut down, simply by 3 of these Liberators targeting a dedicated area. 6) I think they're still stuck in the past and want to put an end to mass burrowed Swarm Hosts in an area. (Possible buff to Swarm Host in future.)
Obviously I don't expect the right tweaking right from the start and I do think it puts even more identity crisis on the Thor, something that might be fixed in a later patch to make it something other than anti air focused. But I think it's supposed to 'liberate' Terran.
But the thing is majority of stuff you have said aren't even a problem in LOTV.
1) I have yet to see mass Ravens in the LOTV.
2) Tank wars have changed a lot since the LOTV where they are able to be picked by the Medivac. Haven't seen those Tank lines like before where both sides won't dare to attack. Liberator with the current design won't end the neverending Tank wars, it will end Siege Tanks and it will end them for good in TvT.
3) Mass Carriers were the problem before people realized that massing Cyclones and Widow Mines handled them decently while being a lot cheaper than Carriers themselves. I know that Morrow was complaining about mass Carriers and then desrow told him "try Cyclones and Widow Mines", and Morrow was like "wow, this actually works".
4) Uh...
5) This might be the valid reasoning but it is still a bad way to handle things. It doesn't address the death ball at all, as it doesn't have splash damage.
6) Swarm Hosts aren't even using burrow anymore as they removed the burrow movement of that unit and they can spawn Locusts even unburrowed now. That said, they still counter flying Locusts as few Liberators will kill all of the Locusts before they land. They might be concerned about mass Lurkers play but Siege Tanks and Cyclones are already there to snipe Lurkers I don't see the reason why they should add another Siege Unit that is also stronger than both of the previous ones...
Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
You know what is embarrassing? The quality of posting in this thread. We have the people claiming the new unit is "more broken than the warhound" without the unit actually being patched in yet; we have the standard my race is weaker than your race toxic bs; we have people claiming the new unit model is ugly or too much resemble the valkyrie (are we looking at the same unit? seriously?).
Wait until some games are played before we start making these comment. From what i see half of these commentators bashing the unit don't even know how the unit works. In fact, the unit isn't even in the game yet, no one knows exactly how it works. What the opponent sees when the unit is targeting a specific location, how fast can you retarget, how fast are the transformations, what unit composition will this work with? These are all important questions that needs answers before any cogent arguments can be made.
If theres something blatantly wrong with it, blizzard will change it.They're aware of what are the implications of such a unit, far more than most of our unit design experts.
On May 24 2015 00:18 Icysoul wrote: They're aware of what are the implications of such a unit, far more than most of our unit design experts.
Like they were aware of the implications of a unit that can send free units halfway across the map or the implications of a unit such as the warhound or tempest?
Not saying that your post is wrong - we cannot know how the liberator performs ingame - but you are giving blizz way too much credit given their track record.
I still doubt they are aware of the implications of the 8 armor ultra.
On May 24 2015 00:18 Icysoul wrote: You know what is embarrassing?
I'll answer: Blizzard apologists who white knight every thread they shouldn't stick their nose in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a game designer to realise that 75 DPS 15 range flying units that cost as much as a Siege Tank don't belong in the game, and that even suggesting a unit like that shows how far Blizzard's gone off the deep end. They're not trying to 'fix Starcraft' and make LOTV a final, balanced version of the game. They're just adding random 'cool mega lolz units' for the f***k of it.
On May 24 2015 00:15 hitpoint wrote: Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
What is hell is fun about a Unit that forces you to run around like a headless chicken over the whole map while trying to catch these?
Im a bit confused: so the Liberator does splash damage with its Ground attack? I thought it will be more like the ravagers shot. Mortar like. Why did they turned it into a flying siege tank? Tanks should be the heavy artillery. Maybe lower the splash from tanks a bit but give them some firepower. At least against armored. Air attack from Liberators seems okay while still being fast. Valkyrie was the same but Mutas were still used in BW. Has anyone seen Liberators being used? Really wanna see how they look in Action.
On May 24 2015 00:15 hitpoint wrote: Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
What is hell is fun about a Unit that forces you to run around like a headless chicken over the whole map while trying to catch these?
Im a bit confused: so the Liberator does splash damage with its Ground attack? I thought it will be more like the ravagers shot. Mortar like. Why did they turned it into a flying siege tank? Tanks should be the heavy artillery. Maybe lower the splash from tanks a bit but give them some firepower. At least against armored. Air attack from Liberators seems okay while still being fast. Valkyrie was the same but Mutas were still used in BW. Has anyone seen Liberators being used? Really wanna see how they look in Action.
It doesn't do splash damage, but it does like 3 or 4 times the damage of a Cyclone within 15 range.
On May 24 2015 00:15 hitpoint wrote: Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
What is hell is fun about a Unit that forces you to run around like a headless chicken over the whole map while trying to catch these?
Im a bit confused: so the Liberator does splash damage with its Ground attack? I thought it will be more like the ravagers shot. Mortar like. Why did they turned it into a flying siege tank? Tanks should be the heavy artillery. Maybe lower the splash from tanks a bit but give them some firepower. At least against armored. Air attack from Liberators seems okay while still being fast. Valkyrie was the same but Mutas were still used in BW. Has anyone seen Liberators being used? Really wanna see how they look in Action.
Quite a lot is fun about that actually xD. Especially when watching Zergs with extremely good control like Life and ByuL constantly fluttering such fragile units on the outskirts of a bio army that could tear it to pieces with even a few moments of complacency. The unit is one that is highly skill-based and presents exciting scenarios due to the risk involved with it maximizing their damage.
==
As for the Liberator's AG attack. It is not splash damage but single target. The way it works is that it deploys a red circle up to 15 range. Any singular unit that steps inside said circle is capable of being fired on for huge damage.
On May 23 2015 23:40 ejozl wrote: I think the Liberator is supposed to: 1) Put a stop to Mass Raven shenanigans in TvT. 2) Put a stop to never ending Tank Wars. 3) Be able to counter Mass Carriers that many Terrans have complained about in LotV. 4) Be able to counter Mass Mutas, in a more secure and cost efficient way. Allowing for more strats from Terran to come to fruition other than: Neverending aggression so Mass Muta never happen or have an entire Mech army designed to kill Mutalisks (Not Siege Tank focused.) 5) Put an end to TvP death balls from Protoss and is an answer for lategame TvP. Protoss will have to divide their army up in chunks and attack multiple fronts, since a singular attack would be completely shut down, simply by 3 of these Liberators targeting a dedicated area. 6) I think they're still stuck in the past and want to put an end to mass burrowed Swarm Hosts in an area. (Possible buff to Swarm Host in future.)
Obviously I don't expect the right tweaking right from the start and I do think it puts even more identity crisis on the Thor, something that might be fixed in a later patch to make it something other than anti air focused. But I think it's supposed to 'liberate' Terran.
But the thing is majority of stuff you have said aren't even a problem in LOTV.
1) I have yet to see mass Ravens in the LOTV.
2) Tank wars have changed a lot since the LOTV where they are able to be picked by the Medivac. Haven't seen those Tank lines like before where both sides won't dare to attack. Liberator with the current design won't end the neverending Tank wars, it will end Siege Tanks and it will end them for good in TvT.
3) Mass Carriers were the problem before people realized that massing Cyclones and Widow Mines handled them decently while being a lot cheaper than Carriers themselves. I know that Morrow was complaining about mass Carriers and then desrow told him "try Cyclones and Widow Mines", and Morrow was like "wow, this actually works".
5) This might be the valid reasoning but it is still a bad way to handle things. It doesn't address the death ball at all, as it doesn't have splash damage.
6) Swarm Hosts aren't even using burrow anymore as they removed the burrow movement of that unit and they can spawn Locusts even unburrowed now. That said, they still counter flying Locusts as few Liberators will kill all of the Locusts before they land. They might be concerned about mass Lurkers play but Siege Tanks and Cyclones are already there to snipe Lurkers I don't see the reason why they should add another Siege Unit that is also stronger than both of the previous ones...
They still have to account for, when 10 years down the line and they don't support the game anymore that problems like Mass Raven metagames don't suddenly start to pop up. It addresses death balls, because it's an area, where if you stand in it, it will kill everything fast. When you give such high dps to a ground mode like this one, the way to counter it, is not stand in it. It simply becomes a powerful zoning tool. It might also be because they worry about mass Lurker in the future, my point being that you cannot 'just' look at the current metagame (if you can even call it that yet) and call what is needed, because as history has proven in RTS, things don't always work out as they are intended. All they can do, is give us a bunch of tools, so we ourselves can problem solve.
1) it has a 3 second transformation between AA and AG
2) No splash
3)only units that enter the red circle take damage
4) 1 second real time between shots
This not like a siege tank at all, at best its like corrosive bile.
We don't know how this unit will play yet, we tought adepts were going to suck and they ended being good, its not like we know everything, so first test the thing and then see how it plays, also stats can be adjustet, I'm really curious to see how it plays.
Finally this unit WAS pretty much community made, this unit its just like gretorps idea wich by the way, got 3rd place in the contest
On May 24 2015 00:15 hitpoint wrote: Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
What is hell is fun about a Unit that forces you to run around like a headless chicken over the whole map while trying to catch these?
Im a bit confused: so the Liberator does splash damage with its Ground attack? I thought it will be more like the ravagers shot. Mortar like. Why did they turned it into a flying siege tank? Tanks should be the heavy artillery. Maybe lower the splash from tanks a bit but give them some firepower. At least against armored. Air attack from Liberators seems okay while still being fast. Valkyrie was the same but Mutas were still used in BW. Has anyone seen Liberators being used? Really wanna see how they look in Action.
Quite a lot is fun about that actually xD. Especially when watching Zergs with extremely good control like Life and ByuL constantly fluttering such fragile units on the outskirts of a bio army that could tear it to pieces with even a few moments of complacency. The unit is one that is highly skill-based and presents exciting scenarios due to the risk involved with it maximizing their damage.
==
As for the Liberator's AG attack. It is not splash damage but single target. The way it works is that it deploys a red circle up to 15 range. Any singular unit that steps inside said circle is capable of being fired on for huge damage.
Well i won´t doubt that Mutas are skillful in the right hands. But its definetly not that much fun for the player trying to catch them. But HotS brought the Trend of Units that are annoying and hard to catch anyways (Oracles, Reaper) so I guess it evens out somehow. ---- Thanks the red circle was the confusing part in the posted pics. Seems like the Anti-Air Attack is more meant for Mutas in TvZ when going Mech and the ground mode more for TvT to break siege lines and contains. Maybe against Mass air startegies against Protoss too but I dont think they will be that good how some said it here. Voids will still be good against them cause of the armored tag but it might force some more micro (they wanted this anyway from all races in LotV) from toss, like attacking from different angles so not all Voids get splashed.
If we bring out terms like "apologists", the debate has ended long ago. We have moved from right and wrong to good and evil. The people who argue against you can only do that because they have nefarious agendas, like supporting blizzard no matter what, or shitting on Blizzard no matter what.
I'm pretty sure I've argued in the past that some people will shit on Blizzard no matter what. I still think it's true, and tbh, I think you have to be dishonest not to see it. But when talking about specific changes, if you want to argue, argue the facts, don't argue what the motives of others are. Otherwise we won't go anywhere.
I like the sound of the new unit. It's good to have a splash air unit that has good mobility. I can see it being an important part of both mech and bio. The ground attack i don't understand but it's cool that it has a secondary role; i just hope it will be balanced with the anti air as the main thing and anti ground a secondary; long range artillery air units are boring.
On May 24 2015 00:18 Icysoul wrote: You know what is embarrassing?
I'll answer: Blizzard apologists who white knight every thread they shouldn't stick their nose in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a game designer to realise that 75 DPS 15 range flying units that cost as much as a Siege Tank don't belong in the game, and that even suggesting a unit like that shows how far Blizzard's gone off the deep end. They're not trying to 'fix Starcraft' and make LOTV a final, balanced version of the game. They're just adding random 'cool mega lolz units' for the f***k of it.
Owow, new concept. "Apologist". I'll put it right next to "counter play", "design", "unit interactions", "meaningful abilities" and "contraction of time".
so you can park one of these 150/150/2 liberators in the air space behind a mineral line and kill 1 worker/s from 15 range. Sounds like it can get messy, for comparison tempests require more time to come into play and needs 6s to kill a worker, and they can't retreat with their slow mov speed.
Blizzard needs to stop creating units with insane range. That is the problem. More range is not the solution for any of the 3 races. BW had the entire range dynamics extremely well. No tempest, viking, swarm hist, cyclone, siege lurker BS.
Just the tank, which is slow, nonflying, immobile, takes time to siege and unsiege, deals friendly fire and has minimum fire range with a huge overkill.
I really hope they address siege lurker soon. I don't care if they make it stronger in other regards or cheaper perhaps, but the current range just isn't fun.
also hope they give the cyclone back it's ground to air attack and instead make an upgrade for additional lock on range (to what it is now), so when it first comes out early came units can escape slightly easier.
On May 24 2015 06:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Blizzard needs to stop creating units with insane range. That is the problem. More range is not the solution for any of the 3 races. BW had the entire range dynamics extremely well. No tempest, viking, swarm hist, cyclone, siege lurker BS.
Just the tank, which is slow, nonflying, immobile, takes time to siege and unsiege, deals friendly fire and has minimum fire range with a huge overkill.
I really hope they address siege lurker soon. I don't care if they make it stronger in other regards or cheaper perhaps, but the current range just isn't fun.
also hope they give the cyclone back it's ground to air attack and instead make an upgrade for additional lock on range (to what it is now), so when it first comes out early came units can escape slightly easier.
I think your not taking it far enough...
Let's bring all units to melee range, keep it simple.
20 pages in, havnt read everything but....what sense does it make to have the spore crawler no longer require an evo but the turret cant be built without a bay, is this not retarded logic? If you say marines can shoot up and scan than I say at least make it consistent, and im not even terran. Seems like silly logic to me.
On May 24 2015 00:15 hitpoint wrote: Nobody builds mutas in lotv? If people have stopped making the most entertaining/fun zerg unit then we've got problems.
I still think siege tanks need a huge buff. Something big, like a range buff or 2 supply cost. Maybe nerf other things to compensate, but tanks are essential for an entertaining game. These new units are just superficial garbage and should be nerfed into oblivion so nobody ever uses them but they can still sell the expansion. Like the Tempest and now the Ravager.
If Parasitic Bombs get nerfed, Mutas will surely be used again.
The anti-ground on the liberator seems pretty nuts number-wise, but I like the mechanic :D I'd like them to rework it so that the liberator has more of a support role for ground (AA is fine). Maybe a single target stun in area instead of dealing damage? I'm also fine with the model. Better than the cyclone at least, looks like a crossover between a scout and a valkyrie :D
Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias.
First, Terran is not even forced to commit to 1 tech tree. Common TvZ/P matches are Bio into some Mech support. Mech works very well in TvT and TvZ. BioTank is the rule in TvT and involves both Bio and Mech. GumiHo and some Proleague players are even trying approaches to BioMech in TvP.
Styles are playable, strong and viable. There is no 1 tech tree committement, specially with new units being designed to be played with Bio. Maybe you are not having a good prespective. Most Terrans say that Terran only has 2 styles: Bio and Mech. Which is false.
The only thing you've correctly pointed out is that transitioning out of that is a pain. Most of the strong units you would use in a Mech compo are very limited in production, tied to tech lab and with long build times, compared to the productive strength of Reactored buildings.
The fact that production strength is lower and tech switches harder doesn't even mean, not at all, that Terran needs 75DPS 15 range air unit. Because do you know what happens when you have OP units? Deathballs.
Maybe we have to rethink the macromechanics for Terran and review the productive strength for Factory/Rax. Or nerf ultras. Not to have a unit that has a mechanic which is 70% Tempest 30% siege tank and has 8 times the power of a Tempest.
By the way, Bio is probably the most cost-efficient composition in-game at and quite broken. Consider tech, and structural cost.
Don't claim "we need OP units" simply because you can't have anticipation on tech switches or the productive strenght is restricted, which is a deep problem of Terran Mech. Adding more asimetry doesn't help anything and doesn't solve the problem that in fact, you can't have a good production, resulting in inviability of styles and difficulties to combine Bio and Mech.
And by the way, Mech is crushing Zerg cost-wise, Bio crushes Zerg cost-wise but it's fairly balanced.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias.
First, Terran is not even forced to commit to 1 tech tree. Common TvZ/P matches are Bio into some Mech support. Mech works very well in TvT and TvZ. BioTank is the rule in TvT and involves both Bio and Mech. GumiHo and some Proleague players are even trying approaches to BioMech in TvP.
Styles are playable, strong and viable. There is no 1 tech tree committement, specially with new units being designed to be played with Bio. Maybe you are not having a good prespective. Most Terrans say that Terran only has 2 styles: Bio and Mech. Which is false.
The only thing you've correctly pointed out is that transitioning out of that is a pain. Most of the strong units you would use in a Mech compo are very limited in production, tied to tech lab and with long build times, compared to the productive strength of Reactored buildings.
The fact that production strength is lower and tech switches harder doesn't even mean, not at all, that Terran needs 75DPS 15 range air unit. Because do you know what happens when you have OP units? Deathballs.
Maybe we have to rethink the macromechanics for Terran and review the productive strength for Factory/Rax. Or nerf ultras. Not to have a unit that has a mechanic which is 70% Tempest 30% siege tank and has 8 times the power of a Tempest.
By the way, Bio is the most cost-efficient composition in-game and quite broken.
Don't claim "we need OP units" simply because you can't have anticipation on tech switches or the productive strenght is restricted, which is a deep problem of Terran Mech. Adding more asimetry doesn't help anything and doesn't solve the problem that in fact, you can't have a good production, resulting in inviability of styles and difficulties to combine Bio and Mech.
And by the way, Mech is crushing Zerg cost-wise, Bio crushes Zerg cost-wise but it's fairly balanced.
I love it when people discredit other opinions because of supposed bias and then make their own statements which are equally biased.
Please give me one, just one tech switch build that doesn't involve some kind of mind game. Tech transitions are not doable, hell no undoable. If you tech switch and win it only means that you would've won the game 5min earllier if you stuck with your original tech tree.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias.
First, Terran is not even forced to commit to 1 tech tree. Common TvZ/P matches are Bio into some Mech support. Mech works very well in TvT and TvZ. BioTank is the rule in TvT and involves both Bio and Mech. GumiHo and some Proleague players are even trying approaches to BioMech in TvP.
Styles are playable, strong and viable. There is no 1 tech tree committement, specially with new units being designed to be played with Bio. Maybe you are not having a good prespective. Most Terrans say that Terran only has 2 styles: Bio and Mech. Which is false.
The only thing you've correctly pointed out is that transitioning out of that is a pain. Most of the strong units you would use in a Mech compo are very limited in production, tied to tech lab and with long build times, compared to the productive strength of Reactored buildings.
The fact that production strength is lower and tech switches harder doesn't even mean, not at all, that Terran needs 75DPS 15 range air unit. Because do you know what happens when you have OP units? Deathballs.
Maybe we have to rethink the macromechanics for Terran and review the productive strength for Factory/Rax. Or nerf ultras. Not to have a unit that has a mechanic which is 70% Tempest 30% siege tank and has 8 times the power of a Tempest.
By the way, Bio is the most cost-efficient composition in-game and quite broken.
Don't claim "we need OP units" simply because you can't have anticipation on tech switches or the productive strenght is restricted, which is a deep problem of Terran Mech. Adding more asimetry doesn't help anything and doesn't solve the problem that in fact, you can't have a good production, resulting in inviability of styles and difficulties to combine Bio and Mech.
And by the way, Mech is crushing Zerg cost-wise, Bio crushes Zerg cost-wise but it's fairly balanced.
I love it when people discredit other opinions because of supposed bias and then make their own statements which are equally biased.
Name any non-splash composition that is better than bio, or more efficient supply and cost-wise, at the same tech level and structural cost.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias.
First, Terran is not even forced to commit to 1 tech tree. Common TvZ/P matches are Bio into some Mech support. Mech works very well in TvT and TvZ. BioTank is the rule in TvT and involves both Bio and Mech. GumiHo and some Proleague players are even trying approaches to BioMech in TvP.
Styles are playable, strong and viable. There is no 1 tech tree committement, specially with new units being designed to be played with Bio. Maybe you are not having a good prespective. Most Terrans say that Terran only has 2 styles: Bio and Mech. Which is false.
The only thing you've correctly pointed out is that transitioning out of that is a pain. Most of the strong units you would use in a Mech compo are very limited in production, tied to tech lab and with long build times, compared to the productive strength of Reactored buildings.
The fact that production strength is lower and tech switches harder doesn't even mean, not at all, that Terran needs 75DPS 15 range air unit. Because do you know what happens when you have OP units? Deathballs.
Maybe we have to rethink the macromechanics for Terran and review the productive strength for Factory/Rax. Or nerf ultras. Not to have a unit that has a mechanic which is 70% Tempest 30% siege tank and has 8 times the power of a Tempest.
By the way, Bio is the most cost-efficient composition in-game and quite broken.
Don't claim "we need OP units" simply because you can't have anticipation on tech switches or the productive strenght is restricted, which is a deep problem of Terran Mech. Adding more asimetry doesn't help anything and doesn't solve the problem that in fact, you can't have a good production, resulting in inviability of styles and difficulties to combine Bio and Mech.
And by the way, Mech is crushing Zerg cost-wise, Bio crushes Zerg cost-wise but it's fairly balanced.
I love it when people discredit other opinions because of supposed bias and then make their own statements which are equally biased.
Name any non-splash composition that is better than bio, or more efficient supply and cost-wise, at the same tech level and structural cost.
who said anything about non-splash? your statement was that bio is the most cost efficient composition in the game, not that it's the best non-splash composition.
Btw, at which page did this thread go from complaining about not enough design changes on the patch
On May 22 2015 10:57 Spect8rCraft wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with these updates is that a lot of them are balance updates (as the title implies, obviously), when they really should be design updates; they should finagle with the roles of units directly and more often at this stage of development, and leave the fine-tuning of balancing later down the road, if the beta is really going to be as long as they imply. Change up some old units, give some TLC to neglected units, take the opportunity to fine-tune staple units, etc. They took a big first step with the economy change and the rush of changes in the beta debut, but they seemed to have shrunk back significantly since.
to complaining about how bad the new design in the patch is
On May 23 2015 19:25 Ramiz1989 wrote: @JCoto I know and agree with everything but it is just a Blizzard policy to release something idiotic and imbalanced to be tested and then nerf it to the ground later(Ravagers also comes to mind). The thing is, even with like 5 Nerfs that it should get, upping the supply and cost, reducing damage for AtG, reducing movement speed and maybe health, it is still stupidly designed unit.
People complain about these long ranged units that are almost risk-free, like Swarm Hosts and Tempests, and then they add something like this to Terran as well.
Got to feel a bit sorry for whoever at Blizzard is doing community management.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias.
First, Terran is not even forced to commit to 1 tech tree. Common TvZ/P matches are Bio into some Mech support. Mech works very well in TvT and TvZ. BioTank is the rule in TvT and involves both Bio and Mech. GumiHo and some Proleague players are even trying approaches to BioMech in TvP.
Styles are playable, strong and viable. There is no 1 tech tree committement, specially with new units being designed to be played with Bio. Maybe you are not having a good prespective. Most Terrans say that Terran only has 2 styles: Bio and Mech. Which is false.
The only thing you've correctly pointed out is that transitioning out of that is a pain. Most of the strong units you would use in a Mech compo are very limited in production, tied to tech lab and with long build times, compared to the productive strength of Reactored buildings.
The fact that production strength is lower and tech switches harder doesn't even mean, not at all, that Terran needs 75DPS 15 range air unit. Because do you know what happens when you have OP units? Deathballs.
Maybe we have to rethink the macromechanics for Terran and review the productive strength for Factory/Rax. Or nerf ultras. Not to have a unit that has a mechanic which is 70% Tempest 30% siege tank and has 8 times the power of a Tempest.
By the way, Bio is the most cost-efficient composition in-game and quite broken.
Don't claim "we need OP units" simply because you can't have anticipation on tech switches or the productive strenght is restricted, which is a deep problem of Terran Mech. Adding more asimetry doesn't help anything and doesn't solve the problem that in fact, you can't have a good production, resulting in inviability of styles and difficulties to combine Bio and Mech.
And by the way, Mech is crushing Zerg cost-wise, Bio crushes Zerg cost-wise but it's fairly balanced.
I love it when people discredit other opinions because of supposed bias and then make their own statements which are equally biased.
Name any non-splash composition that is better than bio, or more efficient supply and cost-wise, at the same tech level and structural cost.
Oh yeah?!? Well first you name any unit starting with the letter Z which has more DPS than a zergling!!!1! /s
Bio is not 'broken' just because it happens to be the most powerful composition in the mid game at a specific tech level.
If Blizzard doesn't fix the broken matchmaking system, all is pointless. Team games are predetermined either from loading screen or a few minutes into the game... just becaus I'm 1vs1 masters, I have to play 1vs2 in 2vs2 plat. It doesn't matter if I'm more efficient than one of enemies' army. Eventually quantity > quality. I'm sure casual players also experience this, so how is it fun?
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Pure bias. [...] By the way, Bio is probably the most cost-efficient composition in-game at and quite broken.[...]
Hahaha :D And where are your facts to underline that your argument is not completely biased? I would say 99% of all posts on TL are biased. There are only a few people who make academic research on specific areas of SC2. Even those might be biased unless the authors are not playing SC2 or play random.
On May 24 2015 18:35 HallofPain4444 wrote: Terran units need to be a little OP and more cost effective than the other races, especially Zerg. Cuz Zerg has Hatcheries which produces army units, which is the most OP building ever. How bout make Zerg units come out from say Hydra den or Roach warren instead of Hatches that would make the game balanced LOL.
Just imagine that when you are stuck with 7rax 1fac 1starport and your opponent Zerg goes Ultra switch WTF are u gonna do? Build fac from scratch? that ain't gonna work. Terran is commited to 1 tech tree, 1 TECH TREE ONLY there ain't no way in hell you can transition outta that. That's why there are multiple units with the same purpose, so stop complaining.
Don't forget hatchs need queens. A standard Zerg macro vs zerg is 4 expansions + 1 macro hatch, and the queen. So 5 queens (same price than 5 rax), and 1 macro hatch (same than 2 rax), so same price than 7 rax, + 10 supply + injecting 5 times each 40s.
Also hatchs way weaker (no repair/no shield regeneration) than other expansion while in fact not really cost effective : 50 for sacrified drone, + the lost of mining time, and add the lower supply from a hatchery, so you have to count the cost of supply.
Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
Micro against seeker missles? yes maybe. Against parasitic bomb? good luck kid.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
Micro against seeker missles? yes maybe. Against parasitic bomb? good luck kid.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
No you can't the spell stays for full duration wheter the unit dies or not
On May 25 2015 03:12 Tyrhanius wrote: Zerg use magic box since 2012, with the hold position move to split them, but i guess P/T need to learn this new trick.
That only works on a few situations, like fighting AtG. for example you can't keep vikings magic boxed all the time because when they got in a fight only those in the front will attack, not to mention that flying units in SC2 are some of the most unresponsive things in the game, unlike mutas or phoenixes wich are very fast and easy to manouver. Vikings, voidrays, corruptors, broodlords and other are stupidly slow and unresponsive
Parasitic Bomb is very OP right now, you shouldn't really argue about it if you haven't seen it in action. It does like 90 damage over 7 seconds(which is more than storm but over longer duration), follows your units and it stacks. There is no micro when your stack of units get like 4 or 5 of them.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
I apologize. I didn't understand fully how it worked before I said that. I was going off of the initial LOTV videos that Blizzard released. It does look pretty ridiculous, however, I think Zerg does need an answer for mass Protoss air. I like the idea of implementing something to assist with that, but parasitic bomb in its current state is clearly not the answer.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
I apologize. I didn't understand fully how it worked before I said that. I was going off of the initial LOTV videos that Blizzard released. It does look pretty ridiculous, however, I think Zerg does need an answer for mass Protoss air. I like the idea of implementing something to assist with that, but parasitic bomb in its current state is clearly not the answer.
I've absolutely had my carrier fleet destroyed by Parasitic bomb... since the damage stacks, you get like 300+ damage over a singel spell. That's enough damage that you can then be picked off by corrupters. Also, you need to release all interceptors ASAP given you're splitting (otherwise move command will send them back to the ship), making them commit.
Toss air feels weaker in LOTV, with the exception the oracle new stasis ability feel really strong.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
I apologize. I didn't understand fully how it worked before I said that. I was going off of the initial LOTV videos that Blizzard released. It does look pretty ridiculous, however, I think Zerg does need an answer for mass Protoss air. I like the idea of implementing something to assist with that, but parasitic bomb in its current state is clearly not the answer.
I've absolutely had my carrier fleet destroyed by Parasitic bomb... since the damage stacks, you get like 300+ damage over a singel spell. That's enough damage that you can then be picked off by corrupters. Also, you need to release all interceptors ASAP given you're splitting (otherwise move command will send them back to the ship), making them commit.
Toss air feels weaker in LOTV, with the exception the oracle new stasis ability feel really strong.
Yeah. It looks pretty insane at the moment. From earlier videos, I remember the radius being much smaller, but I think I was just incorrectly recalling. Maybe that is a fix that could be implemented. There are a few things that they could do. Smaller radius, disappears when the target unit dies, doesn't stack, etc.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
We have been going about this for ever, stuff that narrows gameplay is bad, its just like he says we've been seeing the same reaper opening into WM drop/3 rax since forever, we are just going to have the same gameplay since always. Should we have a failed to scout 4 pixels of the map? -> GG mechanic, no its fucking awful for game play (for the record I don't like WM neither before you go about it), its the same reason roaches no longer have burrow speed.
Also no, we don't adepts 2 shot reapers, and in the current state of the game its imposible to scan every corner of main+nat.
Its not even a balance issue, in my experience playing you HAVE to get a turret because with the new economy an oracle (or 2 or 3 or more) and DTs hit so fast you can barely scout, this isn't hots and we don't want it to be.
On May 25 2015 09:06 weikor wrote: There are a few spells like parasitic bomb, that shouldnt stack damage. Imagine if psi storm did that.
The method of "Is this unit in storm? If so, deal X damage every Y amount of game ticks" is much safer than having every bomb damage every unit around it. These are spells that will not only be used against lots of units - they're designed to be, even if there are big changes to how units stack and move there has to be sanity checks on damage so that you can't lose half of your army in half a second.
Parasitic bomb looks much more dangerous than storm against air units - and easier to apply too, since the HT is one of the slowest units in the game (stimmed marine outruns it by like, 1.7x) while a Viper is very fast and has wings.
Even if it DID NOT stack, that would still hold true.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not many issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
And i want to open differently than WM or 3 rax
Yes as terran i have many way to scout but i havn't not much time since the new eco. Proxies are land very quickly and until your reaper scout the protoss base and eventually suspect a proxies and begin to scout the entire map, the oracle has begin to kill my entire mineral line even before the first turret is landed.
I'm not playing blinbly as you said, but if a terran suspect a proxy he should be able to land a turret immediatly since this new eco.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
I apologize. I didn't understand fully how it worked before I said that. I was going off of the initial LOTV videos that Blizzard released. It does look pretty ridiculous, however, I think Zerg does need an answer for mass Protoss air. I like the idea of implementing something to assist with that, but parasitic bomb in its current state is clearly not the answer.
I've absolutely had my carrier fleet destroyed by Parasitic bomb... since the damage stacks, you get like 300+ damage over a singel spell. That's enough damage that you can then be picked off by corrupters. Also, you need to release all interceptors ASAP given you're splitting (otherwise move command will send them back to the ship), making them commit.
Toss air feels weaker in LOTV, with the exception the oracle new stasis ability feel really strong.
If you have carriers getting killed with parasitic bomb you are doing something terribly wrong. Even amove will prevent it most of the time.
On May 25 2015 00:26 HallofPain4444 wrote: Bio-Mech hybrid builds just don't work at high level. Gone are the days when 1-1-1 was viable. Bio and Mech have terrible terrible synergy. Now that there's a new unit in the Air force maybe Bio-Medivac into Air transition works?
Well second thought as long as the super OP parasitic bomb still exists I don't see any air compostion would be viable lol. Not just Terran, Protoss and Zerg as well just can't commit to air cuz one parasitic bomb and it's GG.
I have once or twice heard about his thing called micro where you don´t stack all of your units and you might get punished if you fail at it. If parasitic bomb is OP i´m sure it will be nerfed to a more reasonable state.
It's pretty intense. It's like being hit with storm on your mutas, except the storm follows your units and the spell itself tracks to your unit, ensuring it hits. And unlike storm, it stacks, and is casted by another flier, so they can easily manuever to you.
You can simply sac the unit that got hit...
Of course, because you know even the best pros could do that in BW. Oh wait...
Also, your units are significantly damaged even if you immediately sack the unit (which I don't even believe makes the cloud go away).
I apologize. I didn't understand fully how it worked before I said that. I was going off of the initial LOTV videos that Blizzard released. It does look pretty ridiculous, however, I think Zerg does need an answer for mass Protoss air. I like the idea of implementing something to assist with that, but parasitic bomb in its current state is clearly not the answer.
I've absolutely had my carrier fleet destroyed by Parasitic bomb... since the damage stacks, you get like 300+ damage over a singel spell. That's enough damage that you can then be picked off by corrupters. Also, you need to release all interceptors ASAP given you're splitting (otherwise move command will send them back to the ship), making them commit.
Toss air feels weaker in LOTV, with the exception the oracle new stasis ability feel really strong.
If you have carriers getting killed with parasitic bomb you are doing something terribly wrong. Even amove will prevent it most of the time.
Of course that he could pre-split them but if you didn't split them before it is too late to split them once you eat 5-6 Parasitic Bombs, they just melt in a matter of secodns. It is even worse that you can use Parasitic Bombs on Interceptors and kill them all, and if they return to the Carriers too soon they will "affect" Carriers with Parasitic Bomb.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
You are not thinking this one through.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
Sounds like you have a naive understanding of how terran works in the early game. I suggest you start to play some actual terran games and get up to reasonable level before you make suggestions to other terran players. Thanks in advance.
On May 22 2015 02:40 The_Templar wrote: Missile turret build requirement changed back to engineering bay
Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone will go this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
On May 22 2015 02:42 royalroadweed wrote: [quote] Worst change ever.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
Why is this the worst change ever? Can you elaborate or give reasoning behind this?
As far as I see, it not only makes the game have a brood war'ish sense, but also require terran players to actually build a EBay (which is used for upgrades for bio units) before making turrets.
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
It's not a bad change and I'm really confused as to why so many people think it is.
.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
But we are talking about the turret in LOTV here not in HOTS. So you're discussion has no point. Sorry.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
What are you talking about? Thats the whole point of the beta, you make no sense.
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
But we are talking about the turret in LOTV here not in HOTS. So you're discussion has no point. Sorry.
It certainly does have a point. If you can't fucking see it, then I guess we're done talking.
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
What are you talking about? Thats the whole point of the beta, you make no sense.
Perhaps because people are tired to do the same opener in TvP since 2 years,reaper expo into drop mine or reaper expo into 3 rax.
And perhaps people want to open mech in TvP (cyclone or drop tank or else) and don't want to spend his mineral into an useless ebay and just land a turret if they suspect proxies.
And perhaps people are tired to lose coin flip game because they guess wrong on their scout.
...
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
This is a BETA and the whole point of this beta is to talk about a game that is barely not fully developed. And that's what i'm doing. But you talk about build and turret in HOTS....
That makes no sence !
So plz talk about the turret or the build in LOTV if you want a real discussion.
On May 26 2015 01:54 Glioburd wrote: Excepted turret change, every polls have a majority of Approve/Neutral.
Poll: How do you feel about the overall direction of these changes? Disapprove
lol
I find it fascinating how many people think that this is a paradox. Think of Blizzard as SC2s government. Only because people would rather have their latest bandaid fixes to deeper problems than not have those fixes, that does not mean they approve of the general approach the government is taking or the government's priorities when addressing problems.
Take the SH as an example. The unit is hated so people will approve of a nerf rather than disapprove. But what they really think is that Blizzard needs to admit failure with this unit and remove it from the game.
Sounds like you have more of an issue with Protoss openers than with anything else. I suggest you complain about that instead. If you play blind, you deserve to get punished. It's a game of information. Every opener has its weakness. If you would not like it exposed, then scout. As Terran, you have the easiest means to accomplish that.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
This is a BETA and the whole point of this beta is to talk about a game that is barely not fully developed. And that's what i'm doing. But you talk about build and turret in HOTS....
That makes no sence !
So plz talk about the turret or the build in LOTV if you want a real discussion.
You need to know about the past to properly discuss the future. Thank you for your time. Goodbye.
I have particulary not much issue with protoss opener, but as everyone says, it's impossible to scout the entire map. And i don't want to play anymore a coin flip game and lose game just because i was not lucky to scout the 4 pixel map where was this proxy oracle.
Then play safe and drop an engy bay.
When as toss I can't scout the Terran ( because he walls, or I scout him last on a 4-players map, or etc.. ), he could be doing a fast 1-base factory mines drop, I need a robo or a forge for detection otherwise I'm taking a risk, right ?
So to be coherent, are you saying it's fine to give toss canons without the forge requirement ? Because the logic would be exactly the same.
Yes i want to play safe with other opener than 3 rax or WM drop and drop a TURRET right now. Not an ebay then a turret.
Honestly...who is going 1 base drop mine vs P ? stop kidding plz. Proxy oracle is very popular but not 1 base drop mine -_-
You're actually kidding, right? So many pros (and I mean so many) are going 1 base mine drop (often proxied) against Protoss.
I have never seen a pro spaming a 1base proxy facto drop mine in the beta. Never. And generally i've never seen a pro doing a 1 base strat vs Protoss just for one reason : MSC.
If 1 base terran strat were strong, everyone went this way. But it's not the case. So, stop kidding me. thx.
Talking about HOTS. The best pros don't play LOTV yet.
This is a LotV thread, why are you discussing HotS here?
Lol. Because we can't talk about a barely developed game like it's actually developed fully. Although, people here think you can.
This is a BETA and the whole point of this beta is to talk about a game that is barely not fully developed. And that's what i'm doing. But you talk about build and turret in HOTS....
That makes no sence !
So plz talk about the turret or the build in LOTV if you want a real discussion.
You need to know about the past to properly discuss the future. Thank you for your time. Goodbye.
It's easy to get overzealous when reading about a unit with stats like that, but you need to consider it doesn't have smart fire, which means it's trash against masses of units, just like tempest. With high damage like that, every 3 shots are overkill and it's possible that 10 of these always shoot at one target at once.
You also need to siege it, mark a specific location (can't chase units around the base or map) and upgrade it.
On May 26 2015 05:35 _indigo_ wrote: It's easy to get overzealous when reading about a unit with stats like that, but you need to consider it doesn't have smart fire, which means it's trash against masses of units, just like tempest. With high damage like that, every 3 shots are overkill and it's possible that 10 of these always shoot at one target at once.
You also need to siege it, mark a specific location (can't chase units around the base or map) and upgrade it.
Tempest:
300/200/4, Fleet beacon tech.
30 damage per voley+14 vsmassive. 2.35 CD real time (LOTV)
Liberator
150/150/2
85+15vs light damage per volley 1.14 CD
Liberator is at least 6 times stronger than a tempest and very accessible in tech, and much more masseable since it's 2 supply. I exchange Tempest for liberator any day you want my fella.
We are always complaining that battles are too fast, "terrible terrible damage", "crazy DPS", "hardcountering" and we are just about to add a unit with the highest DPS in the game with 15 range. Also, with that attack CD, the overkill is going to be much less noticeable than Tempest's.
Put Liberators to harass a mineral line, they kill workers as fast as Oracles but from 15 range.
"Harass the mineral line" - when, buddy? At 20 minutes? You realize you need a techlabed starport with 200/200 upgrade and then fly the thing there and siege it?
Who builds techlab starports vs Protoss and survives without medivacs anyway? Maybe meta will change a lot but there Liberator is much more scary for other purposes then to harass mineral lines lol. Also, it's funny because you can just like, you know, walk out of the circle where they shoot.
I actually think its fine that it does high damage. Its more of a Space control unit, imho its a fairly small circle that seems pretty easy to move out of.
Fits well with the Mech theme, and should let you set up nice sieged positions. This might be the best unit to synergise with tanks too, tanks will protect them from ground like hydra or stalker (which these will be weak against), while the Liberator protects the tanks from air, and has a secondary use to protect flanks.
Just look at the video again, and ask yourself how much a good player would really have lost there.
That video was strange. Was it me or were all of the liberators shooting at any units in the red circle of any liberator. It seemed buggy to me more than OP.
edit: It seems the video maker also noticed it. Doesn't seem like it should be shooting into any of the red circles, should only be shooting into its own red circle only. If that happens it doesn't seem that insane of a unit (particularly if both sides can see the red circle).
On May 26 2015 05:53 _indigo_ wrote: "Harass the mineral line" - when, buddy? At 20 minutes? You realize you need a techlabed starport with 200/200 upgrade and then fly the thing there and siege it?
Who builds techlab starports vs Protoss and survives without medivacs anyway? Maybe meta will change a lot but there Liberator is much more scary for other purposes then to harass mineral lines lol. Also, it's funny because you can just like, you know, walk out of the circle where they shoot.
It's not the harass, but the hyper damage efficiency of it, cheap cost, and Zoning potential.
Calculate more or less 30 seconds later than a Banshee opener. Even 1 minute after it.
Standard Cloak Banshee opener:
1/1/1 opener with tech lab
150/100 + 100/100 (Cloak upgrade) = 250/200
extra banshee 150/100 = 400/300
Liberator + Siege:
1/1/1 opener with tech lab
150/150 + 200/200 (siege upgrade)= 350/350
Scrap the second banshee and go, Liberator has the DPS of 3 banshes and counters mutas.
The circle has the size of almost a mineral line, so it's 1 unit without counterplay denying mining completely. Maybe it is not that strong in TvP, but in TvT and TvZ is going to be hard to swallow.
And even with increased costs, it's going to be a very strong followup of Banshee/Hellion/Reaper pressure, since the most obvious and strong response from Zerg, Mutalisks, are countered by Liberators. And if the Zerg brings Corruptors in, you just kill them on ground.
We are always complaining that "1 mistake, GG" and "too fast DPS" and bring in a 15 range oracle?
The liberator is based on the valkyrie, but the thor is already based on the valkyrie. Keeping to Blizzard tradition, the anti-air units are given an ability to have limited use against ground, but the liberator's instance of this mechanic is rather similar to the siege tank.
In my opinion this is just ridiculous. We have units like the colossus, tempest, swarm host, mothership and thor in the game that Blizzard has effectively replaced and which have no meaningful role anymore. They just serve to take up space. The same is true to a lesser extent for some other units. The point of expansions is to make Blizzard money to improve the game, not simply to add more clutter in order to sell the expansion by highlighting new stuff.
On May 26 2015 06:17 nesmah wrote: You forgot the armory requirement for the upgrade. that change all the thing.
Maybe as an opener it would not work, but as a Banshee followup, it will work for sure.
That doesn't change the fact that has the strongest DPS in all the game at 15 range.
And ?
All is about timing in this game. If the unit is ready when blink stalker are ready (for exemple) i don't see the point at being the strongest unit in the game.
On May 26 2015 06:17 nesmah wrote: You forgot the armory requirement for the upgrade. that change all the thing.
Maybe as an opener it would not work, but as a Banshee followup, it will work for sure.
That doesn't change the fact that has the strongest DPS in all the game at 15 range.
And ?
All is about timing in this game. If the unit is ready when blink stalker are ready (for exemple) i don't see the point at being the strongest unit in the game.
That is not completely true.
Past a certain mark of time, timings are much weaker and units shine by themselves when massed enough and well positioned and microed, that's the complete point of Mech in TvZ. Having 75 DPS per 2 supply is going to be quite noticeable when you have 10 of that units. 750 DPS is the same DPS than 50 Tempests.
the liberator should be the Terran tempest, cost and supply wise.
the way it works... I don't see blizzard wanting it to be massable, their reasoning will probably be something like... "liberators in siege mode takes too much space on screen with their targeted area effect"
It seems that the role of the unit is to force others players to reposition and play around it. I can see a couple of them be one of the best supports in the game but if you change your attack path as the enemy, I can also see them do 0 dmg because of unsieging and sieging again and dying in the meantime.
What the fuck is blizzard thinking, I thought it was going to be OK but the design is fucking awful, just transform and wait for it to kill, siege unit should reward control like in the WoL TvZ where a terran that focused banelings got rewarded for it, this units has 0 micro what so ever, just transform back and forth, once the unit steps out (or doesn't steps in at all) it becomes useless, the damage doesn't really mathers the ground attack is designed awfully.
And the unit itself its not much better, a valkyrie had a lot of maneuverability, this unit can only be 1A into battle. Did they learn't nothing from the viking? Whats with blizzard making air units unresponsive as fuck?
The more I contemplate the liberator, the more it sounds like some twisted love child of the widow mine and the tempest: a long-range "siege" unit intended for map control.
The tempest didn't end up being a remarkably good siege unit (except where swarm hosts were concerned) than it did a hard-counter unit, and the widow mine got relegated to timing defense and parade pushes.
Still, can't really tell whether the liberator's redundant or it'll find its own niche. It does sound like something that could outright stomp down ling-bane-muta, though (the way I see it, a large enough cloud of liberators can simply clean house on drone lines while keeping mutas at bay; when the forced engagement comes, they'll just mosey on home to get rid of the mutas while standard bio takes care of the rest).
The first thing they need to figure out is what economy they're interested in. Before you can balance an rts game you need to have the economy figured out, its the base of the pyramid. The double harvest DHX should have been the first thing they changed in this patch but they didn't even touch on the economy..... why are they making such specific changes to units and upgrades without all the units and upgrades even being in the game? and what is blizzard's obsession with having hard counters to muta for terran but nothing to deal with voidray or phoenix early on.... it's so odd how blizzard feels obligated to have mech be hard countered by air..... and rather than having an upgrade that lets the cyclone shoot up....... why not have the special ability it's self be researched.... so it doesn't destroy ground at the 2 minute mark.... but die to a mothership at the 6 minute mark. I would really love it if Blizzard would start inviting pros like day9, bunny, nony, catz, etc. to blizzard and stream them playing hundreds of games and talking about what they like and dont like... wouldn't that be a fun way for them to make money and improve the game... they could sponsor it and make it into something that people would watch and give feedback on...
On May 26 2015 11:13 crown77 wrote: The first thing they need to figure out is what economy they're interested in. Before you can balance an rts game you need to have the economy figured out, its the base of the pyramid. The double harvest DHX should have been the first thing they changed in this patch but they didn't even touch on the economy..... why are they making such specific changes to units and upgrades without all the units and upgrades even being in the game? and what is blizzard's obsession with having hard counters to muta for terran but nothing to deal with voidray or phoenix early on.... it's so odd how blizzard feels obligated to have mech be hard countered by air..... and rather than having an upgrade that lets the cyclone shoot up....... why not have the special ability it's self be researched.... so it doesn't destroy ground at the 2 minute mark.... but die to a mothership at the 6 minute mark. I would really love it if Blizzard would start inviting pros like day9, bunny, nony, catz, etc. to blizzard and stream them playing hundreds of games and talking about what they like and dont like... wouldn't that be a fun way for them to make money and improve the game... they could sponsor it and make it into something that people would watch and give feedback on...
Stop making so much sense. This is Blizzard we're talking about here, not valve.
On May 26 2015 11:13 crown77 wrote: The first thing they need to figure out is what economy they're interested in. Before you can balance an rts game you need to have the economy figured out, its the base of the pyramid. The double harvest DHX should have been the first thing they changed in this patch but they didn't even touch on the economy..... why are they making such specific changes to units and upgrades without all the units and upgrades even being in the game? and what is blizzard's obsession with having hard counters to muta for terran but nothing to deal with voidray or phoenix early on.... it's so odd how blizzard feels obligated to have mech be hard countered by air..... and rather than having an upgrade that lets the cyclone shoot up....... why not have the special ability it's self be researched.... so it doesn't destroy ground at the 2 minute mark.... but die to a mothership at the 6 minute mark. I would really love it if Blizzard would start inviting pros like day9, bunny, nony, catz, etc. to blizzard and stream them playing hundreds of games and talking about what they like and dont like... wouldn't that be a fun way for them to make money and improve the game... they could sponsor it and make it into something that people would watch and give feedback on...
So if you plant a couple of those things up a ramp and target the ramp... Almost everything that comes up takes 75 damage? And they have AoE anti air too? Might be problematic to balance.
As has been pointed out a couple of times, protoss needed this unit much more. Tempest should be like this so toss has some form of static space control.
so with this and the 11 range BL, the double-digit range club is becoming decreasingly exclusive. I don't feel this direction is helping much with the death-ball problem. :/
Not only is this unit ugly model wise, but it fills absolutely no niche that a buffed siege tank and Viking couldn't already fill. Except Siege Tanks are awesome and Vikings take good micro to work well, this unit is literally none of that, it will be blatantly OP against lower league players who will flood the forums with rage and utterly useless/hideously boring to watch in the pro scene short of Terrans inventing highly abusive and spectator unfriendly plays with it.
"As has been pointed out a couple of times, protoss needed this unit much more. Tempest should be like this so toss has some form of static space control."
I completely agree, but instead of Protoss getting meaningful design reworks to Gateway units and additional space control, they got the Adept which is still in a kind of weird spot and the Disruptor which is just awful to watch/play against as well, it literally is the epitome of a gimmick unit, when used with your main army it's terrible against anyone with masters + level micro and when it's used with Prism range drop it's hilariously broken (or at the very least hilariously gimmicky).
And why no economy changes? That should have been one of the very first things that Blizzard prioritized, how can anything be balanced when this new economy so blatantly favors Zerg and so blatantly hurts Protoss on a sheer production/expansion level?
This beta is starting to go downhill fast, the more patches come out the more I'm convinced the balance team has no clue what direction they actually want to take the game short of, "everything is going to get to the killing and explosions alot faster guys!"
Stop fine tuning units, that's for the end of the beta and the early post release, where are the design changes?
I'm sorry but this really feels like an air siege tank :D It doesn't matter if you kill 1 unit per second or 5 units after 5 seconds, in the end if it has to deploy and does a shit-ton of damage in a zone from long-range, that's a siege tank alright :D
Other than the obvious OPness of the unit, the model and animation are quite cool . I think it could easily be redesigned into a good unit, so there is that. Even just tweaking the numbers on the AG attack could improve it a lot: like shorter range, smaller area, longer deploy time (with visual warning), way longer cool down, less damage etc...
On May 26 2015 17:15 ZenithM wrote: I'm sorry but this really feel like an air siege tank :D It doesn't matter if you kill 1 unit per second or 5 units after 5 seconds, in the end if it has to deploy and does a shit-ton of damage in a zone from long-range, that's a siege tank alright :D
Other than the obvious OPness of the unit, the model and animation are quite cool . I think it could easily be redesigned into a good unit, so there is that. Even just tweaking the numbers on the AG attack could improve it a lot: like shorter range, smaller area, longer deploy time (with visual warning), way longer cool down, less damage etc...
Model and animation are ok, I would just change ground attack as it almost looks like Photon Overcharge or something else from Protoss. Could be a placeholder though.
I wish they would do what they said during the hots beta: delete units. Honnestly we could get rid of the thor/tempest/sh and nobody would be sad with the liberator actually in play now...
On May 26 2015 17:15 ZenithM wrote: I'm sorry but this really feel like an air siege tank :D It doesn't matter if you kill 1 unit per second or 5 units after 5 seconds, in the end if it has to deploy and does a shit-ton of damage in a zone from long-range, that's a siege tank alright :D
Other than the obvious OPness of the unit, the model and animation are quite cool . I think it could easily be redesigned into a good unit, so there is that. Even just tweaking the numbers on the AG attack could improve it a lot: like shorter range, smaller area, longer deploy time (with visual warning), way longer cool down, less damage etc...
Model and animation are ok, I would just change ground attack as it almost looks like Photon Overcharge or something else from Protoss. Could be a placeholder though.
Yeah the projectile doesn't look very Terran indeed.
On May 26 2015 18:32 sAsImre wrote: I wish they would do what they said during the hots beta: delete units. Honnestly we could get rid of the thor/tempest/sh and nobody would be sad with the liberator actually in play now...
Also Colossus, Sentry, Roach, Marauder, Raven, BC, Carriers, Mothership, Oracle, Cyclone... i missed something but nevermind. The only thing i know that everybody loves Siege Tanks!!! But other units are so hated by many various people. So what? My advice: love it of don't play it. There will be no drastic changes unit SC3.
On May 26 2015 18:57 Hider wrote: Just gonna put it out there: I think the unit looks fun, has counterplay and its kinda a new concept. It does kinda overlap a bit with other units.
Just gonna put it out there: I think the unit is fun because it's good both vs Ground and Air. Remember Brood War combination of Guardian and Devourer? Now it's like you need just one unit
On May 26 2015 09:05 Lexender wrote: This unit... sucks
What the fuck is blizzard thinking, I thought it was going to be OK but the design is fucking awful, just transform and wait for it to kill, siege unit should reward control like in the WoL TvZ where a terran that focused banelings got rewarded for it, this units has 0 micro what so ever, just transform back and forth, once the unit steps out (or doesn't steps in at all) it becomes useless, the damage doesn't really mathers the ground attack is designed awfully.
And the unit itself its not much better, a valkyrie had a lot of maneuverability, this unit can only be 1A into battle. Did they learn't nothing from the viking? Whats with blizzard making air units unresponsive as fuck?
Yeah, the control of air units is shit. I think that tonight I'm going to make micro mod for air units since I've been messing a while with it for an official topic, to see how improvable micro is with the SC2 engine. Move-shot mechanics are awful due to how weapons and movement are coded for air units in SC2, so it's tought to reach to a full maneuverability.
Anyone willing to try so we could make an official topic on air micro? ^^
I think it is worth.
All air units are going to suffer a ton since how "slowing" on weapons interacts with deceleration values is a mistery, and what's more, few air units have deceleration values.
Air units have a very small dedication on their movement.
Something you may notice is that, while the Liberator's AG weapon has 15 range, the Siege ability's range (to place the targeting circle) is much, much lower (around 7, I'd guess). It does appear that Liberators can fire shots into another Liberator's Siege circle, though, as long the other circle is within the AG weapon's 15 range.
Interesting tidbit from the Reddit thread. I don't know if the spotter ability is a bug though, would be cool if it were intentional though.
On May 26 2015 09:05 Lexender wrote: This unit... sucks
What the fuck is blizzard thinking, I thought it was going to be OK but the design is fucking awful, just transform and wait for it to kill, siege unit should reward control like in the WoL TvZ where a terran that focused banelings got rewarded for it, this units has 0 micro what so ever, just transform back and forth, once the unit steps out (or doesn't steps in at all) it becomes useless, the damage doesn't really mathers the ground attack is designed awfully.
And the unit itself its not much better, a valkyrie had a lot of maneuverability, this unit can only be 1A into battle. Did they learn't nothing from the viking? Whats with blizzard making air units unresponsive as fuck?
Yeah, the control of air units is shit. I think that tonight I'm going to make micro mod for air units since I've been messing a while with it for an official topic, to see how improvable micro is with the SC2 engine. Move-shot mechanics are awful due to how weapons and movement are coded for air units in SC2, so it's tought to reach to a full maneuverability.
Anyone willing to try so we could make an official topic on air micro? ^^
On May 26 2015 09:05 Lexender wrote: This unit... sucks
What the fuck is blizzard thinking, I thought it was going to be OK but the design is fucking awful, just transform and wait for it to kill, siege unit should reward control like in the WoL TvZ where a terran that focused banelings got rewarded for it, this units has 0 micro what so ever, just transform back and forth, once the unit steps out (or doesn't steps in at all) it becomes useless, the damage doesn't really mathers the ground attack is designed awfully.
And the unit itself its not much better, a valkyrie had a lot of maneuverability, this unit can only be 1A into battle. Did they learn't nothing from the viking? Whats with blizzard making air units unresponsive as fuck?
Yeah, the control of air units is shit. I think that tonight I'm going to make micro mod for air units since I've been messing a while with it for an official topic, to see how improvable micro is with the SC2 engine. Move-shot mechanics are awful due to how weapons and movement are coded for air units in SC2, so it's tought to reach to a full maneuverability.
Anyone willing to try so we could make an official topic on air micro? ^^
I know that topic and the tester quite well, but thanks anyway
The problem is that the unit tester only touches some units and feels like a "test" on some.
What I'm talking about is creating an extension mod, and feature it on Blizz forums. Some units could benefit of some increased micro potential instead of heavy damage (VoidRays, BC's) and other ones could be just improved to feel very responsive (Vikings, Banshees, Corruptors).
I think Blizz made 2 fails regarding air units, which is how the movement values are set, and how the autospread is coded. Many air units lack of acceleration and the codification of deceleration and moving-shot is just bad.
On May 26 2015 20:46 Jenia6109 wrote: Does anybody understand that that video and those stats of Liberator are just internal testing lol? This unit will be twice weaker in the patch.
Some players say here that the unit is going to be weak antiground and is what terran needed.
On May 26 2015 11:13 crown77 wrote: The first thing they need to figure out is what economy they're interested in. Before you can balance an rts game you need to have the economy figured out, its the base of the pyramid. The double harvest DHX should have been the first thing they changed in this patch but they didn't even touch on the economy..... why are they making such specific changes to units and upgrades without all the units and upgrades even being in the game? and what is blizzard's obsession with having hard counters to muta for terran but nothing to deal with voidray or phoenix early on.... it's so odd how blizzard feels obligated to have mech be hard countered by air..... and rather than having an upgrade that lets the cyclone shoot up....... why not have the special ability it's self be researched.... so it doesn't destroy ground at the 2 minute mark.... but die to a mothership at the 6 minute mark. I would really love it if Blizzard would start inviting pros like day9, bunny, nony, catz, etc. to blizzard and stream them playing hundreds of games and talking about what they like and dont like... wouldn't that be a fun way for them to make money and improve the game... they could sponsor it and make it into something that people would watch and give feedback on...
I second this.
Open communication with the community is a great policy they took a step toward, but I fear now have stepped back from.
Continuing on with the, "Mother knows best," attitude that seems more prevalent as of late.
On May 26 2015 11:13 crown77 wrote: The first thing they need to figure out is what economy they're interested in. Before you can balance an rts game you need to have the economy figured out, its the base of the pyramid. The double harvest DHX should have been the first thing they changed in this patch but they didn't even touch on the economy..... why are they making such specific changes to units and upgrades without all the units and upgrades even being in the game? and what is blizzard's obsession with having hard counters to muta for terran but nothing to deal with voidray or phoenix early on.... it's so odd how blizzard feels obligated to have mech be hard countered by air..... and rather than having an upgrade that lets the cyclone shoot up....... why not have the special ability it's self be researched.... so it doesn't destroy ground at the 2 minute mark.... but die to a mothership at the 6 minute mark. I would really love it if Blizzard would start inviting pros like day9, bunny, nony, catz, etc. to blizzard and stream them playing hundreds of games and talking about what they like and dont like... wouldn't that be a fun way for them to make money and improve the game... they could sponsor it and make it into something that people would watch and give feedback on...
I second this.
Open communication with the community is a great policy they took a step toward, but I fear now have stepped back from.
All they were doing was just going from no communication at all to "thanks for all the input guys, but we will be doing something completely different lol". Hardly a step forward if you ask me.
Another micro intensive unit(sighs). Why is that Protoss units are basically just A-move, while Terran units all must be controlled manually? I'd rather have a tempest than this Liberator thing that only can attack certain area and have to be manually sieged and can't even attack buildings omg?
I'd rather have a ground attack that does only 1/4 the damege it does now that doesn't take an upgrade, can attack buildings, and doesn't need to be sieged up to attack.(basically a Tempest with anti-Muta AtA)
Another micro intensive unit(sighs). Why is that Protoss units are basically just A-move, while Terran units all must be controlled manually?
lol
protoss is notorious for having to babysit many of their units with activation abilities while terran core army in the first 5 years of the game was more about how well you could box, left click, right click and a-click.
On May 26 2015 22:25 HallofPain4444 wrote: Another micro intensive unit(sighs). Why is that Protoss units are basically just A-move, while Terran units all must be controlled manually? I'd rather have a tempest than this Liberator thing that only can attack certain area and have to be manually sieged and can't even attack buildings omg?
I'd rather have a ground attack that does only 1/4 the damege it does now that doesn't take an upgrade, can attack buildings, and doesn't need to be sieged up to attack.(basically a Tempest with anti-Muta AtA)
Tempest is an utterly useless and trash unit and there's not a single Protoss player that wouldn't change it to something better or atleast usable. The fact you'd rather take a trash that nobody even builds, than a new anti-muta unit that has the potential to destroy bunched up deathballs or static formations is wonderful to hear, and really speaks volumes about the insight being offered here.
On May 26 2015 22:25 HallofPain4444 wrote: Another micro intensive unit(sighs). Why is that Protoss units are basically just A-move, while Terran units all must be controlled manually?
DKs son plays toss, and apparently he isn't very talented. You do the math from here.
nah I'd rather have a 15 range poking unit with low DPS that can force the other guy to engage. The siege tank already is good enough. I don't think we need another siege unit, especially one that's very hard to maneuver.
On May 26 2015 22:25 HallofPain4444 wrote: Another micro intensive unit(sighs). Why is that Protoss units are basically just A-move, while Terran units all must be controlled manually?
DKs son plays toss, and apparently he isn't very talented. You do the math from here.
Ehhh not, DK was known for playing Terran and making Protoss dumb, eliminating strengths and having hardcoutners, while giving terran 200 mechanisms to be creative and efficient.
Protoss is in a bad state and based in hardcountering always because of him. Bowder already contributed just before WoL beta on "simplyfing protoss macro" leading to the WG dependency that generates so many problems.
However, I wouldn't say that Toss is pure A-move. It's not like other races can't have their time A-moving at all, doesn't mind if you press T before. Bio-Pushes in TvP, Hellbat timings in TvZ, Roach busts, RoachHydraCorruptor, Ling-all ins are A-move too. Protoss is very inneficient when split, and that is a problem for the units. And it is not like MMM has a very complicated micro.
As a Protoss I hate most of the changes that have happened to Protoss over the years. Units have been simplified and resimplified while being slow and hardly microable, and what's most important, inneficient per se, leading to A-Move Deathballs that will lead to GGs from your part or the enemy's.
Stalkers, Phoenixes, Oracles, and HT control are micro-intensive, but that's all. The rest is either poor mobility, poor range or both, generally with big bang damage. At least Disruptors in LotV are more microable than Colossi, fun and anti-deathball.
I think the change should start from changing Sentries. Forcefields are not that bad to have, but shouldn't be abusable as they are, leading to GG pushes where you either have enough units and firepower to defend when split because you are going to be split anyways, or you die. In exchange, aggro units can be buffed.
Actually you guys know what, a tempest would have perfect synergy with a Mech terran army. Make like 3-4 tempests, scan and poke, if they chase you retreat to your siege line, repeat and watch the other guy goes nuts.
Ehhh not, DK was known for playing Terran and making Protoss dumb, eliminating strengths and having hardcoutners, while giving terran 200 mechanisms to be creative and efficient.
Why are you making this stuff up? DK always played random on the ladder.
Ehhh not, DK was known for playing Terran and making Protoss dumb, eliminating strengths and having hardcoutners, while giving terran 200 mechanisms to be creative and efficient.
Why are you making this stuff up? DK always played random on the ladder.
I was waiting for Cascade to rebate what he said by doing the same thing, but you broke the game
On May 27 2015 00:15 ZenithM wrote: Oh come on guys, Adept and Disruptor are pretty micro intensive.
yes, everyone who is playing the beta should agree so. I also think the new oracle is very multi tasking heavy, I wish they can torn down the worker damage a little because right now their utility is so very good (stasis ward has so many functions, it's crazy good)
On May 27 2015 00:15 ZenithM wrote: Oh come on guys, Adept and Disruptor are pretty micro intensive.
Yeah, Disruptor micro concept and Disruptor/Warp prism is good. But Adepts are quite limited. They move slow, have an standard move-shot micro daamge poitn (bad for a 4 range infantry, should be like marines) and based on hardcountering damage. The shade gives good mindgames, but the micro is quite discussable when you move up to high amounts of Adepts, since there is low benefit of splitting them.
On May 27 2015 00:15 ZenithM wrote: Oh come on guys, Adept and Disruptor are pretty micro intensive.
The Disruptor is micro intensive in the wrong way, just like the Viper. If you're using the Viper to counter Colossus either the Protoss picks off or Feedbacks the Viper and wins or the Abduct lands and the Protoss losses the Colossus and Zerg wins. There is very little room for counterplay.
And all of the battle is condensed into a few single actions. And those few actions are way too meaningful because they dictate so much of the game.
There is a similar interaction between Ghosts and High Templar, but there is much more counterplay as they Ghosts can snipe and EMP, while Templars can Feedback, become Archons if they run out of mana or hide in Warp Prisms. Also Storm doesn't do instant damage, it does damage over time so units can move away from it (again more micro counterplay). EMP is instant damage, but it is limited.
Landing an Abduct is basically instant death for the target if used properly. There is no counterplay after a unit is Abducted (there could be if Abduct wasn't instant, and pulled a target in slower). And that is the problem with the Disruptor.
The Disruptor is really expensive and either it lands on a bunch of units, or it doesn't. You might argue that like Storm it has greatly varying degrees of damage that it can do depending on the number of units it hits, and in that way it is better than Abduct. But it is a really expensive unit and Protoss is depending on it to do huge damage in a very short amount of time. Even Colossus give opponents more time to react/retreat ect because it's damage isn't done in one huge burst.
So you can see that the Disruptor also has the potential to condense battles into a few actions. So while it is micro intensive, it reduces the amount of battle micro in general because it can end the battle so quickly, just like the Viper can.
I'd like to draw a comparison to League of Legends. In bottom lane early, even if one side has Annie (a burst mage) battles are usually a lot longer with more action/reaction and counterplay than two assassins going at in mid lane. The reason is because the way the damage is distributed, bottom lane ADCs deal damage over time, while bursty assassins deal a massive amount of damage in a very small time.
Starcraft should avoid burst damage in most situations. The best and most interesting engagements have back and forth micro over a period of time, and therefore are often in the early game. Seeing Gateway units battle MM or Ling/Roach early offers so many opportunities for exciting army control and micro. But late game, damage scales exponentially and units are obliterated so fast that you don't get those long interesting engagements you just get "oh look he landed two good storms, GG!"
Banelings are an exception because the Baneling sacrifices itself, and they don't do overwhelming damage to everything (just light units) like Disruptors do. For those same reasons, the Widow Mine is bad. Siege Tanks are another exception because they can't move while in AOE burst mode, so you can choose not to attack into them, or attack them while they aren't in Siege mode, which is a great example of counterplay.
On May 26 2015 20:46 Jenia6109 wrote: Does anybody understand that that video and those stats of Liberator are just internal testing lol? This unit will be twice weaker in the patch.
Yeah fpr example 150/150/2 is the cost of the cyclone wich makes it the standart terran unit cost, so its quite obvious the stats are just kinda there, probably just place holders for now
I'm wondering why the hell is the Siege tank and Banshee 150/125 and 150/100 respectively and has 3 food? Shouldn't it be that the tank and banshee get 2 food instead? Cyclone and Liberator can be 3 food imo.
apart from balance, just concentrating on the visual design:
i think the liberator looks really silly and un-terrany
since when do terrans shoot blue lasers? also, the general unit design is weak. and the AA attack looks really tiny, i was hoping for a valkyrie-style volley of missiles
On May 27 2015 02:47 summerloud wrote: apart from balance, just concentrating on the visual design:
i think the liberator looks really silly and un-terrany
since when do terrans shoot blue lasers? also, the general unit design is weak. and the AA attack looks really tiny, i was hoping for a valkyrie-style volley of missiles
I agree. It should shoot missiles to the ground or at least have a cannon fire at ground targets, and the AA missiles are underwhelming.
Something you may notice is that, while the Liberator's AG weapon has 15 range, the Siege ability's range (to place the targeting circle) is much, much lower (around 7, I'd guess). It does appear that Liberators can fire shots into another Liberator's Siege circle, though, as long the other circle is within the AG weapon's 15 range.
Interesting tidbit from the Reddit thread. I don't know if the spotter ability is a bug though, would be cool if it were intentional though.
Ooh, that's a really cool mechanic. Do I dare hope that it's not a bug? Lol.
On May 27 2015 02:47 summerloud wrote: apart from balance, just concentrating on the visual design:
i think the liberator looks really silly and un-terrany
since when do terrans shoot blue lasers? also, the general unit design is weak. and the AA attack looks really tiny, i was hoping for a valkyrie-style volley of missiles
I agree. It should shoot missiles to the ground or at least have a cannon fire at ground targets, and the AA missiles are underwhelming.
Right now ground attack really looks like a projectile from Photon Overcharge, I would say that it is just a placeholder. AA missiles are underwhelming but they shouldn't really look a lot better than that because they do 2x7 damage which isn't exactly high. Maybe make an explosion a bit more flashy but that's all.
I rly would just love to have the old halo-missles back. They were soooo cool. The new AA just looks so bad... no power behind that. Terran could need some more attacks that look like real pew pew!
I like how most of the changes the majority of the people say "approve", with one "disapprove" and one "neutral", but the general changes have most people voting "disapprove".
"That sounds like a good change, that sounds like a good change, that's an ok change. Horrible balance patch though."
On May 27 2015 08:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I like how most of the changes the majority of the people say "approve", with one "disapprove" and one "neutral", but the general changes have most people voting "disapprove".
"That sounds like a good change, that sounds like a good change, that's an ok change. Horrible balance patch though."
God, at least skim a few posts and try to find the reason why that might be the case.
The individual changes are okay but the general direction of the patch is indeed horrible. As stated by countless of people, they were expecting major changes to economy and design of certain elements of the game (warp gates etc).
On May 27 2015 08:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I like how most of the changes the majority of the people say "approve", with one "disapprove" and one "neutral", but the general changes have most people voting "disapprove".
"That sounds like a good change, that sounds like a good change, that's an ok change. Horrible balance patch though."
God, at least skim a few posts and try to find the reason why that might be the case.
The individual changes are okay but the general direction of the patch is indeed horrible. As stated by countless of people, they were expecting major changes to economy and design of certain elements of the game (warp gates etc).
I see people complaining about individual changes. Even then, if the changes are okay, you wouldn't see overwhelming approval numbers like with the restoration of gas. This would be reflected in the votecount.
The Liberator is a big change. The beta is long specifically so they can change one thing at a time, because even with the promised super changes, you can't get anything but novelty if you implement it all at once. People get used to the Liberator (which was promised, it's not like they're putting it all off for no good reason), and then once they see how the Liberator works they can tweak it with the rest of the new units and bring something else in (like changing warp gate mechanic).
dunno if this is offtopic but i kind of wish they hadn't removed frenzy from broodlords. i think in zvz if you get to broods against lurkers your opponent should need more of a counter than to make vipers and snipe them one by one with a big ball of lurker/hydra. lurkers dominating the ground is annoying, but i could live with it if defensive hive tech actually countered it in a meaningful way...
I wish Disruptors damaged each other, even in nova form. That way you'd never have some jackass activate all four of them at once and just click them all in the center of a big ball of Roaches and kill like 2 of them after the split. I'd like to see the purification novae forced to be more of a touch-and-go technique. Maybe you could lower the cooldown, in exchange for dropping the damage down to 120.
On May 27 2015 08:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I like how most of the changes the majority of the people say "approve", with one "disapprove" and one "neutral", but the general changes have most people voting "disapprove".
"That sounds like a good change, that sounds like a good change, that's an ok change. Horrible balance patch though."
God, at least skim a few posts and try to find the reason why that might be the case.
The individual changes are okay but the general direction of the patch is indeed horrible. As stated by countless of people, they were expecting major changes to economy and design of certain elements of the game (warp gates etc).
I see people complaining about individual changes. Even then, if the changes are okay, you wouldn't see overwhelming approval numbers like with the restoration of gas. This would be reflected in the votecount.
The Liberator is a big change. The beta is long specifically so they can change one thing at a time, because even with the promised super changes, you can't get anything but novelty if you implement it all at once. People get used to the Liberator (which was promised, it's not like they're putting it all off for no good reason), and then once they see how the Liberator works they can tweak it with the rest of the new units and bring something else in (like changing warp gate mechanic).
The Liberator, being a Starport Tech Lab unit that requires an upgrade for its ground mode and is unlikely to be used with Bio compositions in general, can never ever hope to change the game as much as an adjusted Warp Gate mechanic would, or an adjustment to Protoss tier 1 that doesn't even touch Warp Gate. This just doesn't make sense.
Protoss needs changes to be able to play a sprawled out macro game. The longer Blizzard holds off on introducing them, the higher the chance that they're going to come in the form of new MSC spells like "press F+U to teleport all your opponent's combat units to the farthest possible point on the map from here, and if that point is over impassable terrain then blow them the fuck up."
After playing a quite a few games to get a feel for the pace of the current LotV meta, the first thing I've noticed is that some of the new changes definitely feel like they still need fine tuning. However, if the developers and community keep in mind this is the definitive RTS (and doesn't need skillshots or abilities that belong more in Heroes of the Storm) for the rest of the beta, then we should end up in the right direction.
Many of the new units/abilities (and the less interesting economy) have potential, which is a good thing for still being early into the beta. We just have to hope for trying a lot more iterations of some things if the majority feels as though something isn't working after it's been given time to mess around with.
A few things that come to mind from what I've messed around with in beta so far:
12 worker start is a little too much. 9 workers (and 200 minerals) would be just right. Battles aren't as spread out as 100/60 intended, as you move onto the next base quicker. 3 bases still gets similar income as HotS. Maybe consider trying 6 patches per base.
Siege Tanks shouldn't be able to be dropped for a few seconds after being picked up. Cyclone could use +1 Lock On range, in exchange for slowly ramping up it's damage. Consider requiring either an Engineering Bay or an Armory to build Missile Turrets. Liberator AG mode would be much cooler if it were an upgrade on the Fusion Core.
I'd like if Ravagers had +1 Attack Range but required an Evolution Chamber to make. Parasitic Bomb is deadly, giving Zerg late game Air superiority. Dial back it's damage. Lurkers might need 15 dmg (+5 Armored), then upgrade to 20 dmg (+10 Armored). Ventral Sacs could be 100/100, then Overlords can morph separately into Overtakers.
Adept could use Bounce upgrade again instead of Shield, but on Cyber Core instead. Observer Speed upgrade might work better with various builds on Twilight Council. Disruptor needs a Robo Bay upgrade. Maybe make it cloaked while it's invulnerable? Tempest needs a Fleet Beacon upgrade. Maybe small amount of Air Splash damage?
I'm interested in seeing how the Liberator will be used in both Bio and Mech builds. Keep up the testing, looking forward to more changes!
On May 27 2015 15:48 frostalgia wrote: Disruptor needs a Robo Bay upgrade. Maybe make it cloaked while it's invulnerable?
Dude.
Guy.
You want to turn Disruptors into AOE Dark Templar? Because regular old Dark Templar aren't evil enough?
If that's not offensive on principle alone, consider simply that it removes all micro counterplay, and micro counterplay is (part of) the reason the Disruptor was created to replace the Colossus. The invincibility is pretty terrible already, a flat shield buff would be much more preferable.
On May 27 2015 02:47 summerloud wrote: apart from balance, just concentrating on the visual design:
i think the liberator looks really silly and un-terrany
since when do terrans shoot blue lasers? also, the general unit design is weak. and the AA attack looks really tiny, i was hoping for a valkyrie-style volley of missiles
Since wraith? Or you would be happier if it was red? (that probably has some deep Star Wars implications)
On May 22 2015 03:04 Matt` wrote: why does terran needs more AA honestly, they should remove the thor if they want to bring another AA unit in.
Terran has the worst air units in the game if not just flat out for its lack of mobility compared to the other races but also the cost, and you need such a specific mix of units. It's not like you can spam vikings and they are gonna be as effective as phoenix or mutas. Thors are bad, i mean seriously complaining about thors is the funniest thing in the entire game because they only used to counter 1 unit in the whole game and they are completely shut down by a simple micro trick.
On May 27 2015 15:48 frostalgia wrote: Disruptor needs a Robo Bay upgrade. Maybe make it cloaked while it's invulnerable?
Dude.
Guy.
You want to turn Disruptors into AOE Dark Templar? Because regular old Dark Templar aren't evil enough?
If that's not offensive on principle alone, consider simply that it removes all micro counterplay, and micro counterplay is (part of) the reason the Disruptor was created to replace the Colossus. The invincibility is pretty terrible already, a flat shield buff would be much more preferable.
I think it would be pretty fun if it cloaked while not moving.
1. Parasitic bomb - Basically a storm that you can't dodge and stacks. There's nothing more OP right now, nothing even comes anywhere close imo. Nerfing the damage won't do too much cuz it stucks. When my Viking ball got hit by like maybe 2-3 PBombs they literally evaporate in like a second I can't even react fast enough to split, not that it would matter cuz I think even pro players, and even bots won't be able to do anything. There's no way to even nerf it, this thing just need to go, it makes all sorts of air compositions completely useless.
2. Cyclone - This unit is actually a must have given the other changes like Marauder nerf, Ultralisk buff, Adept buff and so on. Without this unit Terran would be the worst race by like a light year. Maybe the stats, size, food of this unit need some tweaking but it's definitely what keeps T alive against shenanigans. This is the new backbone of T army(the old one being MMM), nerfing this unit should be done carefully.
3. Adept - This unit is WAY too powerful in the stage when it's available. It seems to me I have to blindly go for the fastest possible Cyclone to be able to deal with this opener.(I'm pretty low level so don't take this too seriously, but most casual players probably feel the same way as me) Well with the Cyclone AA removed I just die straight up against other shenanegans like proxy oracle. So what I do is open with fastest possible Cyclone and put 1 turret each per mineral line.(thx for the turret nerf DK!) I'm not even gonna bother scouting cuz it's too APM demanding for my level. I guess us casual players just have to play rock-paper-scissors huh.
I think the problem with disruptors is that they're unreliable.
Another way to see it is this: it "feels" OP when you get to kill 10-15 units, and I think that's why a lot of people consider the unit imba. But that happens only once in a while, especially if your opponent knows how to split.
Most likely, you're going to trade a single disruptor for 5-6 enemy units, on a regular basis. But you're also going to lose a disruptor for nothing once in a while, cause you'll get caught off-pos, or because he'll split in a different direction at the last second and your disruptor will explode doing nothing and get insta killed.
My point being that even though there's potential for killing 10-15 units, you need to consider the average; how many units got killed by disruptors in the game, divided by the amount of disruptors, and that'll give you the average number of kills per disruptor in a game. If you do this calc, you'll find that disruptors is just a "meh" unit. The few times you'll make your opponent rage because you killed half his army with a single disruptor are getting cancelled out by the few times you'll rage because your 300-gas unit didn't do a single kill.
Personally I'd much prefer if the disruptor didn't act as a banneling, but dealt damage over time around its radius. The mechanics would be the same: activate the spell, unit gets unkillable and moves fast but "radiates" a field around it ( that doesn't stack ) that deals X dps, like storm, and once its done the unit is slow and killable again.
On May 28 2015 01:25 HallofPain4444 wrote: Things that need to be adjusted
1. Parasitic bomb - Basically a storm that you can't dodge and stacks. There's nothing more OP right now, nothing even comes anywhere close imo. Nerfing the damage won't do too much cuz it stucks. When my Viking ball got hit by like maybe 2-3 PBombs they literally evaporate in like a second I can't even react fast enough to split, not that it would matter cuz I think even pro players, and even bots won't be able to do anything. There's no way to even nerf it, this thing just need to go, it makes all sorts of air compositions completely useless.
On that note, can you counter parasitic bomb by landing the affected viking?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tPYstk3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ppYOFAD.jpg)
