EPTSome people bash it, but apparently for no good reason?
LotV Community Feedback Update - June 19 - Page 8
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
Some people bash it, but apparently for no good reason? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On June 22 2015 17:22 ShambhalaWar wrote: I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate criticism of the DH model? Some people bash it, but apparently for no good reason? -killing workers isn't as punishing as in HotS/LotV because only the first 8 workers mine at full efficiency -nerf to aggressive builds because player who expand earlier have immediately an income advantage (player A expands to 2 bases with 16 workers and has immediately a higher income than player B on 1 base with 16 workers without the need of building additional workers) -buff to cheeses where you cut workers early because the first 8 workers are more efficient than the last 8. -turtling will still be viable -the risk of becoming more vulnerable to counterattacks/harass isn't worth the slight income boost in most situation. (the only exception is if the other player is turtling) -to complicated for casuals | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote: -killing workers isn't as punishing as in HotS/LotV because only the first 8 workers mine at full efficiency -nerf to aggressive builds because player who expand earlier have immediately an income advantage (player A expands to 2 bases with 16 workers and has immediately a higher income than player B on 1 base with 16 workers without the need of building additional workers) -buff to cheeses where you cut workers early because the first 8 workers are more efficient than the last 8. -turtling will still be viable -the risk of becoming more vulnerable to counterattacks/harass isn't worth the slight income boost in most situation. (the only exception is if the other player is turtling) -to complicated for casuals Workers have a chance to lose more minerals though (they're away longer and may carry twice as much) which actually makes killing workers more punishing. | ||
|
sh1RoKen
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: We’d like to also make it as clear as possible that game design is not about implementing every idea that the majority thinks is correct, it’s about finding the key ideas that will be best for the game. So we’ll do our best to keep an open mind on topics and even if we’re currently thinking that we won’t try something out, we’ll keep it as part of our regular discussions if those issues keep being brought up by the community. Please also try your best to do this as well, and remember it’s not about how many people say something, and it’s not about bandwagoning onto the loudest idea. It’s about trying to look at issues from every angle possible to make sure it is in fact what’s best for our game. Just as an example, internally in design meetings we try our best to detach ourselves from every idea. Even if I’ve suggested something, I try my best to analyze how it might be bad. This way, I can focus on the specific idea and if it’s the correct move for the game, rather than pushing for the idea just because I thought of something I think is awesome. We will never implement anything suggested by the community. We are to afraid to admit that sometimes we are incompetent and some of you bring better ideas that we do. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Flying unit separation radius
We decided to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Making all damage points to zero for air units
We decided not to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking
We will do something very tiny that if anyone will summarize all we say and understand that we don't care about the community we could prove him wrong. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Community resourcing model suggestion
No DH because we are too afraid to admit that sometimes we are incompetent and some of you bring better ideas that we do. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Ranked play in the beta
We will implement it as previously planned. But it will look like we are changing something for the community. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Disruptor being too all-or-nothing
Our designers fucked up so bad that we can not leave things as they are. We will try to change something. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: We’d also like to comment on some topics that we found interesting this week. Again, please keep in mind just because we don’t mention something here, it doesn’t mean we haven’t read it. While it’s impossible to read every single post that comes up every day, we do try our best and can tell you that we read a big majority of the things you guys bring up.
Sometimes I read TeamLiquid. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: There was a post asking if players want battles to last much longer. Our thoughts are that the current pace feels really good, and we were happy to see that most players didn’t want battles to last longer in StarCraft II. " We tried and failed. Let's pretend that the current pace feels really good. | ||
|
Anvil666
Germany122 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Flying unit separation radius We agree that when you are controlling larger numbers of air units, it’s difficult to do the moving shot micro. This requires a code fix, and we’re currently exploring and testing something that we can add to the beta soon. We decided to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. Yes "we" have, never saw "depth of micro"? | ||
|
sh1RoKen
Russian Federation93 Posts
Year 2013? Really "hot" topic. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
It still is, and they're obviously talking about that specifically. I'm worried about LotV as well but these super negative bashing posts aren't helpful at all. More so when they're not even correct | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1555 Posts
However the current problem is- these ventral sacs come at way too early in the tech tree- at hatch tech- it opens up a lot of room for zerg- but in my opinion, it is accessed way to early. Ventrac sacs in Hots require lair and 130 second research time- I n Lotv, its is available right away at hatchery tech. The problem with these ventral sacs are how powerful it is with combined with early zerg all ins- Zerg units as whole are balanced around open space for engagement. They excel in open space but upon coming in closed space such as at opponent's wall, where they are denied room, their low range serves as a disadvantage. Now, with hatchery tech ventral sacs coming at low cost of 25/25 on overlord that would be needed to serve as supply anyway, zerg has access to bypass protoss/terran walls at near to no cost. This opens up tons of room for zerg all ins-common ones such as speedling all in and 1/1 roach push dropped at early stages of game are devastating- especially since zergs excel in places with much surface area. It is because most of terran/protoss advantages against these are kept with walls acting as a delay until they are either able to get more units out or do enough damage to stop. Bypassing this and dropping on top of production or into base would prove devastating. Zerg would be able to fight on equal grounds within the base of the Terran/Protoss race itself in open space while being able to wreak havoc on opponent production structures- a double wammy. Also, the option of AA at the stage of game where such all ins would hit with ventral sacs are limited. empty overlords could be mixed in with regular overlords to protect the drops and each overlord,while slow is at tanky 200hp. Adding to general lack of stronger AA at beginning of game, it would make these drops incredibly powerful Anyways another problem, as protoss currently stands, they were already having trouble defending these all ins-hence the addition of mothership core as what a lot of people derided as "band-aid" fix and limiting to buffs on other part of race. These drops would allow zergs to bypass it along with zealots general need to have small space to limit the surface area. Which again would be eliminated with these drops. All this would do is exacerbate the problem. To people who are going to say that opposition should prepare equally to oppositions all in: how many have seen holds to speedling all in without a wall or defensive structure? Why was photon overcharge added in first place? Ventral sac upgrade itself isnt an issue. its just that zergs ability to bypass wall so early on is. Just delay it to spire or lair tech as other races unlock their respective drop tech by then. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 329278
123 Posts
On June 22 2015 20:19 jinjin5000 wrote: Currently, blizzard made a new change on ventral sacs- now it comes with an upgrade to overlord with at hatchery tech that allows zerg to have early access to drop tech at cost of 25/25 (125/25)-something that zerg wanted for while-an accessible drop tech. However the current problem is- these ventral sacs come at way too early in the tech tree- at hatch tech- it opens up a lot of room for zerg- but in my opinion, it is accessed way to early. Ventrac sacs in Hots require lair and 130 second research time- I n Lotv, its is available right away at hatchery tech. The problem with these ventral sacs are how powerful it is with combined with early zerg all ins- Zerg units as whole are balanced around open space for engagement. They excel in open space but upon coming in closed space such as at opponent's wall, where they are denied room, their low range serves as a disadvantage. Now, with hatchery tech ventral sacs coming at low cost of 25/25 on overlord that would be needed to serve as supply anyway, zerg has access to bypass protoss/terran walls at near to no cost. This opens up tons of room for zerg all ins-common ones such as speedling all in and 1/1 roach push dropped at early stages of game are devastating- especially since zergs excel in places with much surface area. It is because most of terran/protoss advantages against these are kept with walls acting as a delay until they are either able to get more units out or do enough damage to stop. Bypassing this and dropping on top of production or into base would prove devastating. Zerg would be able to fight on equal grounds within the base of the Terran/Protoss race itself in open space while being able to wreak havoc on opponent production structures- a double wammy. Also, the option of AA at the stage of game where such all ins would hit with ventral sacs are limited. empty overlords could be mixed in with regular overlords to protect the drops and each overlord,while slow is at tanky 200hp. Adding to general lack of stronger AA at beginning of game, it would make these drops incredibly powerful Anyways another problem, as protoss currently stands, they were already having trouble defending these all ins-hence the addition of mothership core as what a lot of people derided as "band-aid" fix and limiting to buffs on other part of race. These drops would allow zergs to bypass it along with zealots general need to have small space to limit the surface area. Which again would be eliminated with these drops. All this would do is exacerbate the problem. To people who are going to say that opposition should prepare equally to oppositions all in: how many have seen holds to speedling all in without a wall or defensive structure? Why was photon overcharge added in first place? Ventral sac upgrade itself isnt an issue. its just that zergs ability to bypass wall so early on is. Just delay it to spire or lair tech as other races unlock their respective drop tech by then. right. it is scandalous, zerg has a dangerous early game tool! terran and protoss have a right to feel totally safe behind their wall while building their perfect unit comp and sending out oracles, dts, reapers, adepts, hellbats, banshees and FLYING TANKS. btw either the lings or the overlords will be freakin slow before zerg has researched both speed upgrades. and roach speed is lair tech. and where are all those people who said "let's wait and see how zergs will adapt..." when terran got buffed the **** out of or when swarmhosts got "redesigned" or when even the ravager got nerfed (because there were some strong rushes) and the adept got steroids (so now there are some veeery strong rushes). seems like everyone got used to terran and protoss having zerg by the balls... | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: right. it is scandalous, zerg has a dangerous early game tool! terran and protoss have a right to feel totally safe behind their wall while building their perfect unit comp and sending out oracles, dts, reapers, adepts, hellbats, banshees and FLYING TANKS. btw either the lings or the overlords will be freakin slow before zerg has researched both speed upgrades. and roach speed is lair tech. and where are all those people who said "let's wait and see how zergs will adapt..." when terran got buffed the **** out of or when swarmhosts got "redesigned" or when even the ravager got nerfed (because there were some strong rushes) and the adept got steroids (so now there are some veeery strong rushes). seems like everyone got used to terran and protoss having zerg by the balls... Dude I play Zerg, but you need to get a clue. It doesn't matter that the overlords will be slow, you just need to rally them across the map somewhere near the opponents base while you're waiting for speed to finish anyways. Even just two overlords dropping 16 slings into a Terran base early on could cause tremendous damage and a lot of lost mining time. The only reason Terran and Protoss can survive sling rushes is because they have walls to defend behind. Zerg is unmatched in terms of being able to quickly macro an army early on, which is why the other races cannot fight them until they have had a chance to get infrastructure and tech up and running. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On June 22 2015 19:23 sh1RoKen wrote: Welcome to a new TeamLiquid feature - Blizzard-to-English translator: We will never implement anything suggested by the community. We are to afraid to admit that sometimes we are incompetent and some of you bring better ideas that we do. We decided to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. We decided not to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. We will do something very tiny that if anyone will summarize all we say and understand that we don't care about the community we could prove him wrong. No DH because we are too afraid to admit that sometimes we are incompetent and some of you bring better ideas that we do. We will implement it as previously planned. But it will look like we are changing something for the community. Our designers fucked up so bad that we can not leave things as they are. We will try to change something. Sometimes I read TeamLiquid. We tried and failed. Let's pretend that the current pace feels really good. Go cry somewhere else. If you don't like Blizzard or the way they're handling the game, don't play it. | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote: -killing workers isn't as punishing as in HotS/LotV because only the first 8 workers mine at full efficiency -nerf to aggressive builds because player who expand earlier have immediately an income advantage (player A expands to 2 bases with 16 workers and has immediately a higher income than player B on 1 base with 16 workers without the need of building additional workers) -buff to cheeses where you cut workers early because the first 8 workers are more efficient than the last 8. -turtling will still be viable -the risk of becoming more vulnerable to counterattacks/harass isn't worth the slight income boost in most situation. (the only exception is if the other player is turtling) -to complicated for casuals Wow. These points are so contradictory I don't even know where to start. So it is a bad model both because it is a nerf to aggressive builds, and because it is a buff to cheese? Huh? It is a buff to players who expand early because they get more income, but it also makes expanding not worth it because you will be more susceptible to counter-attacks and harass? You should really look further into this model, because you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to think that the boost in income to the player who has a second base with the same amount of workers instantly makes up for the fact that you sunk all the time and money into building that expansion in the first place; or that the extra income is a level of magnitude greater than the player who didn't expand. The actual increase in income in that situation is 200 minerals/minute. That is a paltry 4 marines per minute, which comes after you chose to forgo making additional rax and units in favor of spending 400 minerals on a second cc. That means it will take around 2 minutes for that cc to pay for itself, leaving a 2 minute window for an aggressive build to hit; more than enough time. And it absolutely makes turtling less viable as the game drags on into the late-game and super-late-game. If someone is turtling, it puts the pressure on that person to be harassing the continually expanding player in some way, while the player who is continually expanding has the ability to throw money into a lot of static defense and still maintain an economic advantage. Also, while the workers after the initial 8 do mine less efficiently, it does not mean they are not adding a lot of income to that players economy. With 8 workers on one base a player will be mining ~450 minerals/minute, while a player with 16 workers on one base will be mining ~700 minerals/minute. Even just a jump to 13 workers nets a player ~600 minerals/minute. Idk about you, but I wouldn't want to lose 5 workers and be down over 150-200 minerals/minute (and most dedicated harass will net at least this many). And as far as it being too complicated for casuals, I simply disagree. The concept of getting more income off less workers is no more complicated that learning a build order in the current meta of HotS. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote: Dude I play Zerg, but you need to get a clue. It doesn't matter that the overlords will be slow, you just need to rally them across the map somewhere near the opponents base while you're waiting for speed to finish anyways. Even just two overlords dropping 16 slings into a Terran base early on could cause tremendous damage and a lot of lost mining time. The only reason Terran and Protoss can survive sling rushes is because they have walls to defend behind. Zerg is unmatched in terms of being able to quickly macro an army early on, which is why the other races cannot fight them until they have had a chance to get infrastructure and tech up and running. It does matter if the overlords are slow. Easier to spot. Easier to kill. Very difficult to get into the base with a slow overlord. Also, everyone is already trying to make sure overlords don't get into their base. With drop potential, people will be even more on the lookout. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote: -killing workers isn't as punishing as in HotS/LotV because only the first 8 workers mine at full efficiency -nerf to aggressive builds because player who expand earlier have immediately an income advantage (player A expands to 2 bases with 16 workers and has immediately a higher income than player B on 1 base with 16 workers without the need of building additional workers) -buff to cheeses where you cut workers early because the first 8 workers are more efficient than the last 8. -turtling will still be viable -the risk of becoming more vulnerable to counterattacks/harass isn't worth the slight income boost in most situation. (the only exception is if the other player is turtling) -to complicated for casuals - That may be true, but it is still a loss of future income. - Not really, - the expanding player is still at a deficit for a time and will require additional infrastructure in order to take advantage of his new base. The aggressive player chooses to build infrastructure early in order to put pressure on. - Ok. But while there are diminishing returns, it's not like the workers past 8 cease to give you additional income or have no value...Workers are still valuable and pay forward later. - Yes. But now swarm style counterplay with near double the income sustained for much longer than in HOTS/LOTV is a possibility, where it was not before. - I tested DH 3x3 and found that I was able to maintain a HOTS 4.5 base income on 6 bases with 48 workers. I was floating minerals on 8 hatcheries. - It's not really that complicated...It's quite simple to grasp. The closer your worker # per base is to 8, and the more workers you have up to 6 bases (in the current model) the better. Gas is a different exception. I wish Blizzard would test 1 gas per base. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On June 23 2015 00:38 Survivor61316 wrote: Wow. These points are so contradictory I don't even know where to start. So it is a bad model both because it is a nerf to aggressive builds, and because it is a buff to cheese? Huh? It is a buff to players who expand early because they get more income, but it also makes expanding not worth it because you will be more susceptible to counter-attacks and harass? You should read more carefully. It is a nerf to aggressive builds but a buff to cheeses where you cut workers early on. So 1 or 2 base allins/pressure will be weaker because the expansion of the opponent gives him a bigger advantage and the cheese builds like 2 rax, 6 pool or cannon rush will be stronger. And it's only a buff to players who expand early when they are playing vs a pressure/allin build but in normal macro games I doubt player will expand beyond a three base economy because the risk of becoming more vulnerable to counterattacks/harass just isn't worth the slight income boost. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17737 Posts
On June 22 2015 17:22 ShambhalaWar wrote: I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate criticism of the DH model? Some people bash it, but apparently for no good reason? people have legit criticisms of it. i wouldn't label every criticism as "bashing". try this here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/487998-thoughts-on-dh-and-lotv-economy#1 | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On June 22 2015 21:40 Jenia6109 wrote: These new Vental Sacs just need to require Lair. I would put Lair and Overlord Speed as requirements. Elevator trick can still happen with Lair only. A fast Lair can still put a ton of pressure in-base just by putting units in the natural, since both Roaches and Zerglings are cheap and can overwhelm relatively easily, specially in ZvZ and ZvP. | ||
|
sh1RoKen
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 23 2015 00:36 ohmylanta1003 wrote: Go cry somewhere else. If you don't like Blizzard or the way they're handling the game, don't play it. I don't like the way they're handling the game. I am not playing it right now. So as approximately 84% of people who were playing WoL right after the release (based on EU server online on Sunday evening). I don't like their way of writing huge amount of text about nothing. And I believe that is exactly where I should "cry" about it in hope to affect something. And the only way to do that is to be critical to them. I simply don't believe that this is the best Blizzard can do. | ||
| ||
