|
On May 30 2015 02:53 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 01:03 Hider wrote:It will be difficult to upgrade all three of the Barracks, Factory, and Starport tech routes, so we’re hoping to see a good variety of mixed tech units" Seriosuly, it's like every other time he writes or says something its nonsense (remember the Double Harvest comment or his response to Lalush on micro?) Variety as in, different unit composition from game to game. Not variety as in, a composition of a few Barracks units, a few Factory units and a few Starport units. 1,1,1 every single game is not game variety.
What does that have to do with shared upgrades? Shared upgrades doesn't incentive going pure bio every game and never going pure mech. Shared upgrades only makes the cost of mixing in air with ground mech lower. However, that doesn't imply that ground-based (only) mech shouldn't be viable. That's just a consequence of Blizzard making terran ground AA too weak.
The only argument you can put in favor of diversty is that the removal of shared ups makes it possible to make air stronger, and thus incentive more bio + air. But that argument still seems very weak, and it would be easier for David Kim to just write that instead of arguing that diversity - as a whole - will be increased.
|
Armory upgrades need to be combined. They need to put it back to normal. It's ludicrous not being able to have upgraded banshees/vikings and having to build 4 armories.
Same for turret b4 ebay change. Needs to go back.
Not too excited for LOTV if this is how the game is going.
|
Also, i find it really saddening that the liberator appears to be a very useless unit, but that's mostly because every game you're going to have 0/0 liberators vs 3/3 zerg/toss due to the terrible armory change.
Just had to make a seperate post about that because the armory change is ludicrous.
|
It's ludicrous not being able to have upgraded banshees/vikings and having to build 4 armories.
What's the point of building those units anyway? Assuming the Liberator gets balanced, wouldn't that unit almost always be preferable to the Viking and Banshee? Only exception is vs Broodlords/Carriers, but in that case you probably prefer Cyclones.
Obviously if Liberator stays this bad, it will probably be inferior to Vikings/Banshee's - point is I am having a hard time identifying scenarios where all terran units have unique strenghts.
|
I have given up all hope about LotV.
After many weeks of beta we still have a dull and uninteresting game. In the end the game feels like HotS, but with a worse set of units and abysmal balance -which wouldn't bother me if design was interesting, but it's not. So many things are idiotic and just restrict match-ups (cyclones, adepts, lurkers, ultras) and it doesn't get any better with patches.
My last glimmer of hope is that they'll begin to actually care and do sensible things once Heroes is up and running. But it's a very, very faint hope.
|
On May 30 2015 04:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + It's ludicrous not being able to have upgraded banshees/vikings and having to build 4 armories. What's the point of building those units anyway? Assuming the Liberator gets balanced, wouldn't that unit almost always be preferable to the Viking and Banshee? Only exception is vs Broodlords/Carriers, but in that case you probably prefer Cyclones. Obviously if Liberator stays this bad, it will probably be inferior to Vikings/Banshee's - point is I am having a hard time identifying scenarios where all terran units have unique strenghts.
If the Liberator overlaps with anything vs ground, it's the Siege Tank, not Banshee.
Vikings are still very useful in TvT (air control in tank wars, countering a BC transition), and they kill BLs and Carriers dead in case they ever become things. You probably still want a Viking hunting WPs.
|
On May 30 2015 04:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 02:53 ejozl wrote:On May 30 2015 01:03 Hider wrote:It will be difficult to upgrade all three of the Barracks, Factory, and Starport tech routes, so we’re hoping to see a good variety of mixed tech units" Seriosuly, it's like every other time he writes or says something its nonsense (remember the Double Harvest comment or his response to Lalush on micro?) Variety as in, different unit composition from game to game. Not variety as in, a composition of a few Barracks units, a few Factory units and a few Starport units. 1,1,1 every single game is not game variety. What does that have to do with shared upgrades? Shared upgrades doesn't incentive going pure bio every game and never going pure mech. Shared upgrades only makes the cost of mixing in air with ground mech lower. However, that doesn't imply that ground-based (only) mech shouldn't be viable. That's just a consequence of Blizzard making terran ground AA too weak. The only argument you can put in favor of diversty is that the removal of shared ups makes it possible to make air stronger, and thus incentive more bio + air. But that argument still seems very weak, and it would be easier for David Kim to just write that instead of arguing that diversity - as a whole - will be increased.
My argument was that hypothetically the more paths you divide upgrades into, the more you have to commit into a singular path. Leading to more choices in playstyle. If everything was on the same upgrade, then we quickly find the most versatile of unit compositions, with only few mix ins of other units.
It's paradoxical, but I think I'm not talking absolute bullcrap.
|
If the Liberator overlaps with anything vs ground, it's the Siege Tank, not Banshee.
But what is it the Banshee can do that the Liberator can't?
Harass? Check, both can harass.
Movement speed? Liberator roughly as fast as upgraded banshee.
Straight up engagement? Liberator better (once it gets balanced at least) or at least Banshee isn't good enough, especially without shared ups to ever consider getting the banshee for its straight-up engagement utilty.
Vikings are still very useful in TvT (air control in tank wars, countering a BC transition),
What is the cost efficiency of Liberators vs Vikings? If you go mass vikings order to beat Liberators, doesn't the latter perform better? Vs BC transition, I imagine Cyclones being a lot better in the late game anyway.
Anyway I could see Vikings kiting vs Liberators and outperforming them in that regard. But vs toss/zerg it seems that the Liberator dominates these units.
My argument was that hypothetically the more paths you divide upgrades into, the more you have to commit into a singular path. Leading to more choices in playstyle.
The playstyle is a result of the units you build, not the weapon/armor upgrades you get. You play the exact same way with 2/2 as with 1/1.
If everything was on the same upgrade, then we quickly find the most versatile of unit compositions, with only few mix ins of other units.
What? No, you could still go pure mech or pure bio due to how unit synergizes and how the production works.
|
On May 30 2015 05:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I have given up all hope about LotV.
After many weeks of beta we still have a dull and uninteresting game. In the end the game feels like HotS, but with a worse set of units and abysmal balance -which wouldn't bother me if design was interesting, but it's not. So many things are idiotic and just restrict match-ups (cyclones, adepts, lurkers, ultras) and it doesn't get any better with patches.
My last glimmer of hope is that they'll begin to actually care and do sensible things once Heroes is up and running. But it's a very, very faint hope.
The worst thing in lotv is the economy which doesn't solve the 3 base income cap, removes defensive playstyles and blatantly favors zerg.
As long as this doesn't get fixed (either by reverting to hots or ideally by introducing some form of double harvest) I have no interest at all in lotv.
I played 3 games in beta 1 with each race and I had absolutely no fun. The 12 worker start just feels unnatural, the balance is completely off and the "expand or die" mechanic kills all strategic diversity.
The only thing I like is the disruptor replacing the collossus as main Aoe although the disruptor isn't very good designed either. But everything is better than the collossus.
If blizzard doesn't completely change their plans for lotv i fear the death of sc2.
|
The anti ground attack of the new unit is meant for one thing and one thing only, anti siege tank positions. Because in Blizzard thinking TvT Tank vs Tank is a problem now as it was in WOL (when they wanted static long range/ warhound with anti mech) solution.
I had super high hopes for LOTV when i heard about nerf to Immortal shields, better eco, longer battles, mech vs Protoss; but it's the same shit. For mech they bring a bio2.0 kiting unit like the Warhound instead of fixing the Tank, the eco they only pretend to fix but instead they only put a timer on strategies instead of creating new ones, and about longer battles...nothing. They might as well bring back Browder because they are just as "creative".
I know i'm negative but i was genuinely happy with the direction they said they were going a few months ago, only to be for the "n" time proven wrong...
marine vs banes is the only thing SC2 did right; one game and 2 expansions later and still everything else is inferior to BW. Great job Sc2 design team, you are great!
|
On May 30 2015 06:05 Hider wrote:
What is the cost efficiency of Liberators vs Vikings? If you go mass vikings order to beat Liberators, doesn't the latter perform better? Vs BC transition, I imagine Cyclones being a lot better in the late game anyway.
Anyway I could see Vikings kiting vs Liberators and outperforming them in that regard. But vs toss/zerg it seems that the Liberator dominates these units.
Yeah, what I meant about air control in TvT hinged on ground mech (or biomech) still being the dominant strats. If they are, and Liberators are only built as anti-Vikings, kiting them down should be no trouble. If Liberators are found to be independently worthwhile in TvT and we're liable to see a ton, then Vikings might only be a counter if Bbyong is controlling them.
Who was playing with Corruptor clouds vs bio not too long ago, swiping all the Medivacs out of the air? I want to say soO, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Vikings might be a better counter to Corruptor swarms if those become a thing.
|
Guys, how to beat these 9 range lurkers btw? :D
|
On May 30 2015 08:41 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 06:05 Hider wrote:
What is the cost efficiency of Liberators vs Vikings? If you go mass vikings order to beat Liberators, doesn't the latter perform better? Vs BC transition, I imagine Cyclones being a lot better in the late game anyway.
Anyway I could see Vikings kiting vs Liberators and outperforming them in that regard. But vs toss/zerg it seems that the Liberator dominates these units. Yeah, what I meant about air control in TvT hinged on ground mech (or biomech) still being the dominant strats. If they are, and Liberators are only built as anti-Vikings, kiting them down should be no trouble. If Liberators are found to be independently worthwhile in TvT and we're liable to see a ton, then Vikings might only be a counter if Bbyong is controlling them. Who was playing with Corruptor clouds vs bio not too long ago, swiping all the Medivacs out of the air? I want to say soO, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Vikings might be a better counter to Corruptor swarms if those become a thing.
that was soO's teammate dark
|
On May 30 2015 08:41 StarscreamG1 wrote:
Guys, how to beat these 9 range lurkers btw? :D
With Colossi, Immortals and Blink Stalkers, at least that's what I've seen beating them unless your opponent is way ahead.
|
On May 30 2015 05:58 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 04:27 Hider wrote:On May 30 2015 02:53 ejozl wrote:On May 30 2015 01:03 Hider wrote:It will be difficult to upgrade all three of the Barracks, Factory, and Starport tech routes, so we’re hoping to see a good variety of mixed tech units" Seriosuly, it's like every other time he writes or says something its nonsense (remember the Double Harvest comment or his response to Lalush on micro?) Variety as in, different unit composition from game to game. Not variety as in, a composition of a few Barracks units, a few Factory units and a few Starport units. 1,1,1 every single game is not game variety. What does that have to do with shared upgrades? Shared upgrades doesn't incentive going pure bio every game and never going pure mech. Shared upgrades only makes the cost of mixing in air with ground mech lower. However, that doesn't imply that ground-based (only) mech shouldn't be viable. That's just a consequence of Blizzard making terran ground AA too weak. The only argument you can put in favor of diversty is that the removal of shared ups makes it possible to make air stronger, and thus incentive more bio + air. But that argument still seems very weak, and it would be easier for David Kim to just write that instead of arguing that diversity - as a whole - will be increased. My argument was that hypothetically the more paths you divide upgrades into, the more you have to commit into a singular path. Leading to more choices in playstyle. If everything was on the same upgrade, then we quickly find the most versatile of unit compositions, with only few mix ins of other units. It's paradoxical, but I think I'm not talking absolute bullcrap.
Yes, I agree with this. However, the way they're going about it is getting farther away from that if anything. It's certainly not closer.
|
On May 30 2015 08:56 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 08:41 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 30 2015 06:05 Hider wrote:
What is the cost efficiency of Liberators vs Vikings? If you go mass vikings order to beat Liberators, doesn't the latter perform better? Vs BC transition, I imagine Cyclones being a lot better in the late game anyway.
Anyway I could see Vikings kiting vs Liberators and outperforming them in that regard. But vs toss/zerg it seems that the Liberator dominates these units. Yeah, what I meant about air control in TvT hinged on ground mech (or biomech) still being the dominant strats. If they are, and Liberators are only built as anti-Vikings, kiting them down should be no trouble. If Liberators are found to be independently worthwhile in TvT and we're liable to see a ton, then Vikings might only be a counter if Bbyong is controlling them. Who was playing with Corruptor clouds vs bio not too long ago, swiping all the Medivacs out of the air? I want to say soO, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Vikings might be a better counter to Corruptor swarms if those become a thing. that was soO's teammate dark
Haha, that makes so much sense. It felt like soO and yet not soO. I should have jumped to Dark as soon as I dismissed Soulkey as a possibility. Thanks
|
On May 30 2015 05:58 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 04:27 Hider wrote:On May 30 2015 02:53 ejozl wrote:On May 30 2015 01:03 Hider wrote:It will be difficult to upgrade all three of the Barracks, Factory, and Starport tech routes, so we’re hoping to see a good variety of mixed tech units" Seriosuly, it's like every other time he writes or says something its nonsense (remember the Double Harvest comment or his response to Lalush on micro?) Variety as in, different unit composition from game to game. Not variety as in, a composition of a few Barracks units, a few Factory units and a few Starport units. 1,1,1 every single game is not game variety. What does that have to do with shared upgrades? Shared upgrades doesn't incentive going pure bio every game and never going pure mech. Shared upgrades only makes the cost of mixing in air with ground mech lower. However, that doesn't imply that ground-based (only) mech shouldn't be viable. That's just a consequence of Blizzard making terran ground AA too weak. The only argument you can put in favor of diversty is that the removal of shared ups makes it possible to make air stronger, and thus incentive more bio + air. But that argument still seems very weak, and it would be easier for David Kim to just write that instead of arguing that diversity - as a whole - will be increased. My argument was that hypothetically the more paths you divide upgrades into, the more you have to commit into a singular path. Leading to more choices in playstyle. If everything was on the same upgrade, then we quickly find the most versatile of unit compositions, with only few mix ins of other units. It's paradoxical, but I think I'm not talking absolute bullcrap.
The problem is that spliting the upgrades means nothing if the units aren't good, you say that it creates compositions, but it doesn't, all the opposite, mech units are generally shit, starport units are good but aren't good by themselves, the big problems is that if you split the upgrades you punish players for using different unit compositions, if you can only get a handful of units per composition you will only use the units that are the best by themselves.
That obviously means bio will be played 99.999999%. So I guess thats what the community wanted, to kill mech, since apparently everyone hates it, now you can bio, bio-mech, bio-whatever. Hurray for strategic diversity!!
|
On May 30 2015 04:44 avilo wrote:
Armory upgrades need to be combined. They need to put it back to normal. It's ludicrous not being able to have upgraded banshees/vikings and having to build 4 armories.
Same for turret b4 ebay change. Needs to go back.
Not too excited for LOTV if this is how the game is going.
Exactly how? If you're zerg and want to go muta and anything on the ground you need 2 spires (because in this case you're considering only upgrading them at the same time) and 2 possibly 3 evos. If you're protoss and want to go ground and air you need to build 2 cyber cores and 2 possibly 3 forges.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with needing to upgrade separate upgrades if you're making separate unit compositions. Its literally how the entire game works outside of mech ground/mech air in hots.
|
|
|
On May 30 2015 10:24 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 04:44 avilo wrote:
Armory upgrades need to be combined. They need to put it back to normal. It's ludicrous not being able to have upgraded banshees/vikings and having to build 4 armories.
Same for turret b4 ebay change. Needs to go back.
Not too excited for LOTV if this is how the game is going. Exactly how? If you're zerg and want to go muta and anything on the ground you need 2 spires (because in this case you're considering only upgrading them at the same time) and 2 possibly 3 evos. If you're protoss and want to go ground and air you need to build 2 cyber cores and 2 possibly 3 forges. There is absolutely nothing wrong with needing to upgrade separate upgrades if you're making separate unit compositions. Its literally how the entire game works outside of mech ground/mech air in hots.
1.- Zergs don't need starports to build mutas, 1 spire and they can make mutas from all their hatch.
2.- Cyber cores, don't cost 100 gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
