|
On June 01 2015 15:52 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 15:15 winsonsonho wrote:On May 30 2015 17:03 ohmylanta1003 wrote:On May 30 2015 16:43 dust7 wrote:On May 30 2015 14:13 ElMeanYo wrote:
Guys.
*blah blah blah the liberator is overpowered... blah blah blah
*blah blah blah the liberator is underpowered... blah blah blah
Don't you realize it is a beta and its stats will be tweaked? Honestly some of you sound like you are going to quit the game because a beta unit is not quite like you want it at this moment.
Stop being drama-queens. People are just frustrated that all Blizzard does is throw some toys at us instead of finally starting public experiments on core game mechanics. Given the dawning realization that Godot will never come and the fact that the new toy is even bugged to the point of working completely different than intended people are upset and need to bash something. So they bash the new toy. Personally, I am upset because they refuse to make mech viable since WoL. With mech I mean positional play centered around the siege tank, not turtling with tanks until you reach a critical mass of ravens or thor/hellion amove timing pushes. I want to be able to slowly push across the map with carefully set up tanks, taking bases and being able to defend them while fending off harass and harassing myself, constantly trying to trade efficiently with my opponent trying to break the push. Unfortunately, tanks are a joke unit. They can't hold a position for their life in SC2. So what does Blizzard do? They give us a disposable single tank shot best used with bio (the mine). After that, they still don't adjust the tank, they give us a mech KITING unit, i.e. a long range bio unit from the factory. After that, they give the tank a new gimmick (medivac pickup) to turn it into a mobile harassment tool (???) instead of letting it do its job. After that, they give us a sky siege unit, instead of adjusting the tank. You are perfectly well aware that if Blizzard messed with the core mechanics, people would also be up in arms. There. Is. No. Pleasing. This. Crowd. That's why Blizzard doesn't listen to us. Because no matter what they do, it's wrong. I really don't see how you guys don't see this. A fact of life is that you can't please everybody and that perfection does not exist.. But that doesn't mean Blizzard should give up on trying to please the majority and make as many happy as possible. That's why voicing your opinion and debating inadequacies is good, if they realise that the majority of the community have an issue with the game, they should start listening and doing. Otherwise the majority will just keep complaining and/or walk away.. Do you understand that people who are displeased are generally the ones who bother to tell their opinion? That's why you see everyone complaining and possibly mistake majority for a vocal minority. What majority of people wants is an enigma.
Then Blizzard should make more of an effort to get the opinion of the rest of the community. A quick and easy voting system within Battlenet, SC2 itself or the Beta perhaps. That would surly make things more transparent and we could all guess less about what's going on in the heads of the "average" player, pro, and Blizzard designer.
Did WC3 have as much bitching about terrible mechanics, economy, units etc? Did as many mods get made that tried to totally recreate the original game itself or test out different mechanics, economies, etc to get Blizzard to change their ways? I don't know for sure but I think not...!?
|
On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it.
Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea...
|
On June 01 2015 11:25 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 17:56 ETisME wrote:
I love watching TvP now, way better than hots one.
The nerf to marauder, the Adept with disruptor I think have nailed it.
All the engagements are intense and very dynamic
I think terran can get a buff somewhere but right now it's awesome to watch. Yeah I think some of the positive stuff Blizzard are doing is not being focused on. What you describe is addressing some long standing problems - Tier 1 unit-interaction. ie. Nerfing maurauder indirectly buffs Protoss gateway units.
yeah once you get over the bitching/bitching on bitching phrase, you can finally enjoy the game.
Hots produced a lot of awesome games and lotv will be way better, especially when they fixed the terrible pvt.
|
On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea...
I think that stat-wise, Corruptors are Devourers (High HP, 2 armor) with a Roach-like attack.
They could focus in combining both units at the same time.
I think that the high HP and high armor from Corruptors is not bad at all since that allows them to survive in fights and be efficient at their AA role, but HP could be toned down a bit to make the unit more dynamic (more speed, maybe more damage or range, antiground attack, etc.)
It seriously needs a revamp of the mechanics.
|
On June 01 2015 20:18 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea... I think that stat-wise, Corruptors are Devourers (High HP, 2 armor) with a Roach-like attack. They could focus in combining both units at the same time. I think that the high HP and high armor from Corruptors is not bad at all since that allows them to survive in fights and be efficient at their AA role, but HP could be toned down a bit to make the unit more dynamic (more speed, maybe more damage or range, antiground attack, etc.) It seriously needs a revamp of the mechanics.
From my experience, tweaking various stats on the Corrupter, it's one of the few units in the game that cannot easily be tweaked to feel much more rewarding. I think the only way to make this unit really interesting is to give it an interesting ability-kit. Unfortunately Blizzards approach with spambased ability, abilities with no counter play (high damage vs structures) or autocast abilities simply aren't interesting.
On the other hand I have some interesting idea for new abilites to the Corrupter that would completely change the dynamic when the unit is out on the map.
|
On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea...
Devourers actually had a quite interesting attack, and had very good synergy with mutas due to it; I wouldn't mind seeing corruptors getting their attack actually, provided they got more expensive as a result. (For anyone not knowing, devourers added an 'acid spores' debuff on their targets that slowed attack speed and added 1 extra damage per spore, up to a possible of 9. Very powerful combined with glaive wurm bounce of mutas.)
The beta corruptors were also quite interesting due to their ability to disable turrets, though it was a bit overpowered because of how long it did so. I don't know why they insist of making them so uninteresting. :l
|
On June 01 2015 20:40 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea... Devourers actually had a quite interesting attack, and had very good synergy with mutas due to it; I wouldn't mind seeing corruptors getting their attack actually, provided they got more expensive as a result. (For anyone not knowing, devourers added an 'acid spores' debuff on their targets that slowed attack speed and added 1 extra damage per spore, up to a possible of 9. Very powerful combined with glaive wurm bounce of mutas.) The beta corruptors were also quite interesting due to their ability to disable turrets, though it was a bit overpowered because of how long it did so. I don't know why they insist of making them so uninteresting. :l
But you have to be carefull adding too much options to corruptors, they are overall the best AA unit in the game, the cost for that is the lack of other roles for the unit.
The best example is the phoenix, it can't do shit against corruptor even though both cost the same and can only hit air. and that is the price for being faster and having GB.
|
Reading through the comments, I find comfort in the fact that I'm not the only one swimming in disappointment.
But at the same time it is disheartening to see the design team keep up the main problematic theme since early WoL. Minor and conservative changes, while turning an arrogant eye to all the constructive feedback with the usual "we felt that..." punchlines.
HotS was the first Blizzard game I didn't buy and it seems LotV will be the second on that list. Only a miracle can breath new life into SC2 at this point. And this is coming from a very devoted Starcraft fan.
|
The Liberator is not a unit that can work on its own. It's more of a support unit to a mainly bio army. You really need the mobility of the bio to force the enemy to come within range of the Liberator. Mech/Air compostion just don't work atm, too gas heavy.
This patch is a HUGE NERF to T imo. I'd take combined upgrades over Lib any day. Pure Air T still is not a viable tech tree, too gas heavy, too fragile. The entire T starport units are pretty much trash except medivacs.
|
On June 01 2015 20:40 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea... Devourers actually had a quite interesting attack, and had very good synergy with mutas due to it; I wouldn't mind seeing corruptors getting their attack actually, provided they got more expensive as a result. (For anyone not knowing, devourers added an 'acid spores' debuff on their targets that slowed attack speed and added 1 extra damage per spore, up to a possible of 9. Very powerful combined with glaive wurm bounce of mutas.) The beta corruptors were also quite interesting due to their ability to disable turrets, though it was a bit overpowered because of how long it did so. I don't know why they insist of making them so uninteresting. :l
This sounds cool. The acid spore from be would probably be to strong if copied directly, but maybe we can get a light version of it. Like only the armour debuff and down to a minimum of armour 0. Would still make muta-corruptor very strong I think, and pure corruptor less so maybe, due to the slow attack speed.
|
On May 28 2015 04:45 IntoTheheart wrote:
Is there sufficient design space for Terran to have both a Viking and the Liberator?
They're both primarily air-to-air combat units and have a separate mode for ground-based combat.
Vikings are used to snipe armored/big targets from afar. Including colossus and Broodlords (or even Battlecruisers, Tempests). The Liberator will be an anti-flock unit, to kill mutalisks, phoenixes, vikings, corruptors.. overall cheaper lighter air units.
The liberator is also an air-to-ground siege unit, where the viking is a ground-to-ground single target unit.
Big differences.
|
Vikings is primarily anti-Collossi. Against Brood Lords and Carriers Vikings are pretty bad imo.
BLs usually have Infestors or Vipers support and Vikings are horrible against those. One fungal or Pbomb on your Viking cloud and it's instant GG. Vikings are extremely fragile and they don't really trade well with corruptors either so it's not a good idea to make them against Zerg.(make Cyclones instead cuz they can't be hit by Pbomb)
As for Mass Carriers, the launched interceptors just rape Vikings so never try to counter carriers with Vikings. Cyclones are pretty bad against Carriers too so make WM or Liberator. Again the seperated upgrades hurt so much here. It's a pretty rare situation and you have plenty of time to react so just don't make Vikings in TVP.(nobody goes mass Collosi anymore)
|
On June 01 2015 20:18 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea... I think that stat-wise, Corruptors are Devourers (High HP, 2 armor) with a Roach-like attack. They could focus in combining both units at the same time. I think that the high HP and high armor from Corruptors is not bad at all since that allows them to survive in fights and be efficient at their AA role, but HP could be toned down a bit to make the unit more dynamic (more speed, maybe more damage or range, antiground attack, etc.) It seriously needs a revamp of the mechanics.
That's my point. Devourers were even more tanky than Corruptors but their mechanic and ability was really good in my opinion and you didn't have to mass them unless you are going up against heavy heavy air(mass Battle Cruisers/Carriers with other air units). Corruptors stat wise aren't bad it is just that their ability feels so irrelevant that their stats are the only thing you see(unlike Devourers that were used mostly for their ability) and like that they represent flying Roaches more than anything else...
On June 01 2015 20:40 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 17:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 01 2015 16:03 BretZ wrote:On June 01 2015 07:34 CptMarvel wrote:
Corruptor is one of the units that were wrongly designed up from the get-go. Hard to do anything smart with it now.
Just watched a short video on the Liberator... daaamn it looks ugly ! and the attack animations are so bad I'm lost for words. I don't even feel like the unit is interesting.
Uncool stuff Blizzard. Uncool indeed. Just saw on patch notes comments from a blue saying that the corrupter should actually still have caustic spray and they did not intend on removing it. Yes but caustic spray is like really bad and doesn't fit Corruptor at all. Corruptors were literally one of my favorite units from the WoL alpha when I saw videos of them, but they have changed their ability and turned them basically into flying Roaches, tanky units with low dps, we might as well ignore their ability considering how irrelevant it is. At this point it is so bad that adding Devourer back into the game would be a really good idea... Devourers actually had a quite interesting attack, and had very good synergy with mutas due to it; I wouldn't mind seeing corruptors getting their attack actually, provided they got more expensive as a result. (For anyone not knowing, devourers added an 'acid spores' debuff on their targets that slowed attack speed and added 1 extra damage per spore, up to a possible of 9. Very powerful combined with glaive wurm bounce of mutas.) The beta corruptors were also quite interesting due to their ability to disable turrets, though it was a bit overpowered because of how long it did so. I don't know why they insist of making them so uninteresting. :l
It was interesting, Devourer was literally my second favorite unit in BW(first one was Lurker) and I would love to see him back, the reason I wrote "adding Devourer back into the game would be a reall good idea..." was because I don't believe that Blizzard wants to add any of the old units to the game, especially not in their known form.
Alpha Corruptors if you all have forgotten got special ability to corrupt units that it has killed, so it was creating a "flying turrets" out of enemy air units. That could be too strong of course, but it would also feel a lot more Zergy than the current version and it could be balanced. Like Phoenixes and Vikings, it would also be an anti-air unit that has some impact against ground units as those "flying turrets" were able to shoot the ground units.
|
I really don't care about stuff being too strong, it's what the beta is for.
But Zerg early game is the same as HoTS and WoL again.. Like please don't make the game more dull every patch..
Don't overnerf the shit out of everything that's fun
|
On June 01 2015 15:01 friendship wrote:
Seems like the reasoning is this:
Blizzard separates the upgrades and brings in a strong air unit. Not really to compliment mech but to give a mainly air army (besides mass raven) a chance. Since it's beta I guess they want to see how people optimize various unit comps-- i.e. if mostly mech what and how much anti-air do you use or if going airmech how many hellios are in your army etc.
The complaints seem to be focused around now 'needing' a ton of armories and upgrades whirling away so that air and mech together are viable-- contrary to what blizzard is saying regarding 2 distinct and viable techpaths. Needing to make certain strategic prioritization has been a part of teching for all 3 races the whole time. This is just trying to squeeze out a 3rd option for terran which is what has been asked for.
It's one thing to use the change to see what pure Mech and pure Skyterran look like by forcing it, but your second paragraph doesn't include the fact that you can still go Skyterran just as easily if its upgrades are shared with Mech (not counting the untested possibility of Skymech being straight-up better than full Skyterran or Mech).
So really, the two distinct options were already there. Skymech and Mech with air support, however, are not as effective as before. It's not a "3rd option" more than it's the loss of a "4th option," and the option to transition between Mech and Sky becoming harder.
The thing is, I personally believe every composition should have an element of "air dominance" available to it -- not necessarily air by itself with ground forces being more difficult to incorporate into it, or vice-versa. I'm fine with a full-air composition, but giving a ground composition little in terms of air support options eliminates an interesting dynamic of the game. And I'm not saying Mech shouldn't be able to stand on it's own without air, but that it should at least have the option of air support without having to make great sacrifices.
Additionally, forcing distinct playstyles by eliminating tools from other playstyles is not the ideal approach to "creating" playstyles, IMO. I believe you should have tools that are all useful but also unique, so that they can be mixed and matched to be used in different ways together. The ideal tool mixtures, or compositions, will work themselves out naturally. Bio units are tools that have high mobility and high low-burst DPS, but low health. Having to stick around Tanks limits their full mobility potential and their low health makes them more susceptible to friendly splash, so usually Bio compositions don't include Tanks (though there are exceptions here and there where Tanks are used as anchor points). All-air compositions have a natural synergy, being able to essentially ignore terrain obstacles and cliffs, so there are benefits of leaving out ground units without having to split upgrades. Pure ground compositions are meant to not need air units, so not worrying about the need for air superiority is a plus for them. But of course there are also obvious benefits to mixing ground and air units. It's a matter of playstyle if you have the proper tools available.
If Blizzard is set on forcing Barracks, Factory, and Starport away from each other, then the Medivac/Tank ability seems pretty counter-intuitive.
Now, maybe it's not actually that hard to have Skymech -- compare to Protoss, which in some situations and strategies can mix ground and air forces fairly easily despite air upgrades being separate from ground (aside from Sheilds, which seems like kind of a weak bridge between the ground and air Protoss forces, particularly in the lategame). But from the sounds of it, it is harder for Terran to do this with split upgrades. Maybe time will tell otherwise, but splitting upgrades does not create (or buff) anything besides limits, it simply puts more constraints on composition mixtures.
This makes balance the only real reason for upgrade splitting to me. Not that units can't be balanced with upgrade sharing, but that they cannot live up to their full potential and be balanced without upgrade splitting. But this is also why sharing one upgrade and not the other could be fine -- even if shared weapon upgrades would be imbalanced, that doesn't mean shared armor upgrades would, and vice versa. It's simply a matter of finding out whether the better balanced design for a group of units (in this case Barracks, Factory, and Starport are the groups) is limiting their synergy with other unit groups while making them stronger individually within their own group, or making them weaker individually while increasing their synergy with other unit groups.
|
Hi Ninja,
I think it goes without saying that forcing a race to commit more to a given tech path by choosing upgrades specific to said tech path is not supposed to make it easier for said race to go for a different tech path at the same time. In this case, maybe there is an argument where some synergy between the two can be reached with a common upgrade, or a unit that fills a gap--
I recall styles (especially zerg ones) that include basically every lairtech ground unit with almost no upgrades because of unit synergies-- not saying it's optimal. If the game goes on some choices have to be made for the unit comp he's going for-- e.g. he's getting +x melee but his army is mostly roach, wonder whats next? Or terran's getting some bio upgrades and all we see are unupgraded hellions, hmm...
Opening tech trees and then expecting a player to commit to one isn't a nerf on its own. If no new unit was coming out in conjunction (one that has been designed to make a pure air style viable) then yes, it'd be a nerf. It's certainly a nerf to the current HOTS mech with vikings or banshee style I'll concede that. But if you add a new unit why not start by seeing if it can fulfill the purpose it was originally designed for before relegating it to a support role within the existing 'standard' mech comp? It's like if we remove the voidray from the game, maybe we could consider combining some robo and air upgrades for protoss-- or in a world without mutas maybe zergs shouldn't have separate melee and ranged attack upgrades.
|
On June 02 2015 12:45 friendship wrote:
Hi Ninja,
I think it goes without saying that forcing a race to commit more to a given tech path by choosing upgrades specific to said tech path is not supposed to make it easier for said race to go for a different tech path at the same time. In this case, maybe there is an argument where some synergy between the two can be reached with a common upgrade, or a unit that fills a gap--
I recall styles (especially zerg ones) that include basically every lairtech ground unit with almost no upgrades because of unit synergies-- not saying it's optimal. If the game goes on some choices have to be made for the unit comp he's going for-- e.g. he's getting +x melee but his army is mostly roach, wonder whats next? Or terran's getting some bio upgrades and all we see are unupgraded hellions, hmm...
Opening tech trees and then expecting a player to commit to one isn't a nerf on its own. If no new unit was coming out in conjunction (one that has been designed to make a pure air style viable) then yes, it'd be a nerf. It's certainly a nerf to the current HOTS mech with vikings or banshee style I'll concede that. But if you add a new unit why not start by seeing if it can fulfill the purpose it was originally designed for before relegating it to a support role within the existing 'standard' mech comp? It's like if we remove the voidray from the game, maybe we could consider combining some robo and air upgrades for protoss-- or in a world without mutas maybe zergs shouldn't have separate melee and ranged attack upgrades.
Except, it isn't, sure if a comp is good enough being a commitment isn a big nerf, but it is, a nerf, wich is the big problem with split upgrades its simply a balance nerf, not design change.
SC2 mech is a very special kind of comp, its created a very slow pace, with a very expensive production, very gas heavy with late upgrades (gas army cost+armory cost+upgrade cost), its a very all around composition (zerg tech switches for example are something mech has been weak against) you a large amount of units, like any other composition, but unlike other compositions its not easy to get to that spot. You need a large amount of thors to not die to magic box, a large amount of tanks to not die to a full surround, etc.
This was overcomed with starport units, you could use a good sense and have very diverse compositions that could work in conjunction, like Bbyongs hellbat/thor/banshee or ForGGs squads of viking/banshee or heavy medivac/hellbat tvt mech, or ForGGs hellion/viking, etc.
This is the problem with mech, without starport units you can only get factory units (obviously) and this is a problem, you can't simply go out on the map with it like you could with HotS mech, you can't do pushes unless you have a big amount of thors to stop a big muta switch or a critic tank mass to not die to 100 supply of roaches, so you have to turtle, wich with the new economy is not really posible. So you are forced to get both factory and mech units to survive since commiting to just factory units is not possible but then again the new economy is very punishing since mech units is expensive, and getting upgrades is harder for mech than for other compositions.
So in the end my guess is that blizzard wants bio to be the standard unit composition in the game and THEN make the choice to either get factory units or starport units as a transition, because going mech is no longer posible.
|
@Friendship:
You make some good points, and I think the last paragraph I added essentially deals with what you are saying -- in more specific terms of what you are saying, would a unit (or group of units, say Starport units in this case) really be reduced to support and specialist roles if they shared upgrades with another group of units (Factory units in this case)? Or is it possible for them also to be core/key units in a different composition though they are support units in another? Or could they be core/key units in both compositions?
If upgrade sharing limits the potential to be key units in the composition they were designed for (in this case, Liberator for Starport), then by all means, split the upgrades. But this could limit its ability to aid other compositions (Liberator for Mech, for instance), which could be solved by sharing upgrades. So really the question is, if it shared upgrades (or an upgrade), would it be able to fulfill a key role in one and a support role in another? I think it could be balanced for such. At the same time, perhaps it could still be a good support tool without sharing upgrades -- for instance, the Liberator seems to be working well with Bio so far against certain things. Bio/Cyclone is another example. (I don't consider Bio/Mine and the fact that Bio includes Medivacs as good examples as Mines and Medivacs work in spells/abilities which aren't significantly affected by weapon/armor upgrades).
This also goes back to the part I added about the natural synergy of certain compositions. Again as an example, air units work very well with each other because they aren't limited by terrain. And airless ground compositions don't need to invest in air superiority (this isn't seen often, but Bio/Mine I think is one exception where often Vikings aren't seen at all against some compositions that have air units, also HTOMario has showcased a "moar Tanks" style in TvT where his superior ground forces and positioning outweighed the opponent's air superiority, essentially making most of the opponent's Vikings wasted resources). Yet air units can still be used as support units for ground units and vice-versa due to reasons outside of terrain limitations and air/ground army balance (though in some cases the purpose of air units in a ground composition is for vision of high ground and far terrain for ground units, or for transporting ground units over and around obstacles). I don't see why an air unit can't at the same time be more powerful in the context of a full air army while sharing upgrades for the sake of their ground support capabilities.
Again, though, I also don't know yet if shared upgrades are actually necessary for Starport units to be good support for Mech and vice-versa.
|
so far I sort of like the liberator. it's a fun unit to play against, except that it does everything to well. It destroys anything in the air and its ground attack while slow is strong. I think blizzard needs to decide which nitch is should do well, and nerf the other attack. That way it isn't an all around unit. The problem I have with it right now is It counters every toss air unit (except tempist, but it can still chase them down and kill them quite easily.) dodging it's ground attack with your army allows for some micro which is fun. but it feels dumb when even with good micro high templar can't outrun the attack.
|
Hi Lex and Ninja,
It feels necessary to clear my throat a bit, I am not saying that shared upgrades would necessarily be imbalanced. I am proposing that the change to split them shows a promising development for how terran unit comps are addressed by blizzard. If later this proves challenging or not viable it should be easy enough to make a change.
Probably there are other, more interesting ways to promote hybrid unit comps around mech with starport HOTS style or starport core with a few mech support units-- e.g. making factories and starports capable of transforming into the other for a cost; or allowing 2 upgrades per armory to be researched at the same time yielding a faster research rate than 1 at a time but slower than 1 in each armory. Something more interesting than the quick fix of combining the upgrades belongs in the beta imho-- though to be honest I'd say theres a pretty high chance the combined upgrades will be back soon enough if the air comps prove less popular than blizzard is hoping for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
