|
David Kim has provided us with additional thoughts on many of the issues the community has brought up. Source.
"As we mentioned before, we’d like to provide our thoughts on areas that we’ve looked into this week based on community suggestions. Before we get into the details, we’d like to point out while we try our best to hit majority of the big topics, it’ll be impossible to cover every single topic every time. The goal here is to discuss big issues with you guys, and continue doing so over time. With this first post, we’re covering a few more topics than we might typically cover in a normal update. However, we think this is a good way to kick off these updates.
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.
Here are our thoughts on many of the bigger community discussions this past week:
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.
Making all damage points to zero for air units
- One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
- We generally don’t make extreme changes that alter so many things at once, due to the side effects these changes can cause. Changing every single air unit’s damage point is not something we’d like to explore, but we’d be open to specific air unit damage point changes if the change makes sense.
- With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking
- This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
Community resourcing model suggestion
- We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some.
- Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
Ranked play in the beta
- We hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
Disruptor being too all-or-nothing
- We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment.
- We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
- Overall, it looks like we have a decent solve for the case of a single hit ending games often.
- We believe the next step in this area is to test out changes that would allow players to more easily save and reuse the Disruptors. This way, we can solve the issue where a miss creates a high chance of the game being over.
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.
- Adept micro tips video was very cool.
- It was a very good example of relaying more info on something new, so that players in the beta can better test new units.
- It would definitely be more cool to see more tips on new units videos, because we believe faster we have the majority of beta testers ramped up with new units, the more high quality beta testing we will have going forward.
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. "
|
|
|
I actually like the disruptor changes. Also having rank pretty soon is really huge
and necessary to get the pro´s playing lotv.
|
Really nice update, can't believe they are finally touching a lot of important topics from the depth of micro video  . Overall everything said here seems awesome!
I still hope Blizzard finds a way that a player with 66 workers on 5 bases has more income than a player with 66 workers on 3 bases!
Oh and is the Liberator buggy or not?
|
wow i didnt expect that. keep it coming
|
Disruptors with lower radius hmm. Without a big impact they don't seem very useful.
Really good feedback though. Agree with the majority of what he states.
Also, tank turret tracking woohoo
|
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Community resourcing model suggestion - [...] We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
Wait what? It is doing a good job right now?
I didn't get that impression thus far.
And I'm not sure whether the majority of the players are happy with the "gun to your head"-model...
|
Really nice post from blizzard, but i think they should realise that with the current Lotv economic model the 3 base cap is still a thing, you expand just to reach 3 base optimal saturation when your bases ran out of minerals, and it forces the immobile race (Protoss) to expand at a time when none of their critical tech has been completed or it doesnt have enough units to spread out in multiple bases. Expanding should be a choice and not a must !
|
Very good post! This is what most people probably want from you! Even if we disagree, at least we get to hear some reasoning behind decisions. WP David Kim!
One thing though.
"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."
That is BS! Since the start of Sc2 this has been a problem; for LOTV you decided to try fixes for this (as you anounced at Blizzcon with the longer attack times); Just because you failed to find a solution does not make the pace "feel good". It's a major problem for SC2 from a play level to a spectator level. If you can't fix the terrible terrible dmg design fine, but don't pretend all is fine.
|
Must've been on reddit and TL the past few weeks. The negativity has been at an all time high, for sure.
Still, guess I'm glad, as it's nice to actually hear them speak about the game.
|
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems.
|
Liberator.... working as planned... or so it seems now xD
|
China6327 Posts
On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems.
They act fast because of recent backlashes.
Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job?
|
I hope they decrease the cost and delay on disruptors. they seem just so expensive right now.
|
On June 20 2015 03:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Very good post! This is what most people probably want from you! Even if we disagree, at least we get to hear some reasoning behind decisions. WP David Kim!
people grossly underestimate how good a company Blizzard is because they get lost in the forest of some small SC2 issue.
they can't see the forest through the trees.
to counter people unhappy with the resource gathering system.
i would like to take this post to state that i am happy with the resource gathering system.
if Blizzard can make it better then fine. But, i like its structure right now.
great work by DK, as usual.
On June 20 2015 03:24 Nezgar wrote:
And I'm not sure whether the majority of the players are happy with the "gun to your head"-model...
welcome to C&C style expanding ... i think its fucking awesome.
they should start calling the minerals Tiberium
i never hated the HotS resource model, however, i think the LotV model is better.
|
I do not necessarily agree with all that's said in this update but you gotta say; This fast response is really nice to see.
Props.
Also: Depth of micro video was not in vain Lalush!
|
Good job DK, see what an hour or research and typing will do for the community? Everyone will be nice and happy now.
The trick is to do this every month or every 3 weeks, consistency is key with communication, while I'm sure nobody expects a detailed update every week, asking for one every month really shouldn't be a problem, this is a beta, it needs constant feedback.
On the Disruptor, gradient (is this the correct word?) the Nova radius to increase counter micro while not making it useless, and maybe just make the speed boost last for even 2 seconds after it explodes, that way at least for those 2 seconds, the Disruptor has an easier chance of escaping without a Warp Prism nearby.
Its a good unit, it's just lopsided because it can't escape, give her some basic escape opportunities and make the blast a tad bit less punishing and this unit will feel awesome.
|
the frequency of the patches is coming in hot and heavy.
i hope people realize how expensive it is for Blizzard to do this and that substantial resources are being dedicated to the game... it makes sense that it is full box price.
|
Very interesting. Seems the beta might finally be picking up some steam.
Hopefully they see the light of day and revert the 8 armor ultralisk.
|
So Blizzard is completely ok with a resource model that nerfs protoss? How can they be happy with that? Also, limiting micro does not equal interesting micro. That's a terrible way to look at things, imo. JaeDong was the Muta micro god in bw because the game allowed for it. The current model doesn't allow for such things to happen. There is something wrong with the game's potential for micro when the game's most exciting micro is when a player runs away and splits his or her army into as small chunks as possible. I like some of the changes they're going forward with like the turret for immortals/tanks, but that switch is long overdue and the videos addressing these problems are months to years old by now. Better late than never, I guess
EDIT: fixed some grammar/spelling errors
|
On June 20 2015 04:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the frequency of the patches is coming in hot and heavy.
i hope people realize how expensive it is for Blizzard to do this and that substantial resources are being dedicated to the game... it makes sense that it is full box price.
How is that expensive? and while you are taking about price, there is 10$ dlc that has more content than LotV, so the price doesn't make sense at all.
|
Interesting. I hope we see more of these posts in the future.
|
Finally ranked ladder, that might get me back into LotV.
|
On June 20 2015 04:13 Klowney wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 04:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the frequency of the patches is coming in hot and heavy.
i hope people realize how expensive it is for Blizzard to do this and that substantial resources are being dedicated to the game... it makes sense that it is full box price. How is that expensive? and while you are taking about price, there is 10$ dlc that has more content than LotV, so the price doesn't make sense at all.
beta testing is the most expensive stage of software development.
and i'm not talking about fake beta tests that are set up to make money on video games on steam.
|
On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes.
I doubt this is true. Maybe you didn't notice, but in the previous thread to this one, much of the community was speaking out against the negativity we have been leveling at blizzard. The community was putting itself in check for the first time I have really seen, I am impressed by it. I think if anything our taking responsibility for our "childish backlash approach" may have for the first time made more room for the open communication we all wanted.
I am 100% IMPRESSED, by this posting of David Kim's. While I don't always agree with the decisions, the explanations of what they have tried with certain issues and their reasoning for making or not making a change leaves me feeling like a mostly equal part of the conversation. As a member of the community I feel more heard and I get a deeper understanding into why they are making the decisions they are making.
For example, they are speaking to why ladder hasn't been implemented up to this point. We now have a rough idea when it will be implemented, we know they are in agreement with the community, and that the only reason it hasn't been implemented so far is because of technical difficulty.
Now there will be nobody creating a thread about this because they thought the dev team was just ignoring them and the community. They will understand why ladder isn't currently part of the beta, and there will be no reason to clammer about it on every thread and repeatedly feel as though they are ignored, while others jump on the bandwagon with them.
All of this solved by open communication.
David Kim please keep these blogs up. This was something I personally asked for and I'm very glad you're doing it. So far the tone of this thread is drastically different, take that as direct positive feedback of this open communication between community and Blizzard.
|
I would like to see some explanations and more deep insight into the economy, why they like it, what it brings to the tables.
Through videos with commentary. By blizzard.
Would also appreciate it this for other economy systems so a person that doesnt rly understand math knows reasons behind it and get a much better insight. By teamliquid and blizzard to.
|
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game.
|
Splendid to have more feedback from the folks!
I can't agree with everything they've put forth, of course (I... just really don't like the way the disruptor functions), but it's intriguing to see what direction they're intending.
|
On June 20 2015 04:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game.
WoL is still going strong... you can find games quickly at people close to your level unless you are really low Bronze.... and this is with HotS going on sale for $10. I'm sure lots of people won't want to pay the full box price of $60 USD and HotS will keep on rolling no problems.
|
On June 20 2015 04:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 04:26 Charoisaur wrote:
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game. WoL is still going strong... you can find games quickly at people close to your level unless you are really low Bronze.... and this is with HotS going on sale for $10. I'm sure lots of people won't want to pay the full box price of $60 USD and HotS will keep on rolling no problems.
wait wait... is t confirmed that it will cost $60?? wtf?!
|
On June 20 2015 03:14 Musicus wrote:
I still hope Blizzard finds a way that a player with 66 workers on 5 bases has more income than a player with 66 workers on 3 bases!
I agree 100%. A player should be rewarded for having five bases over the other players 3. That is what I like about the DH model.
Right now aggressive expansion is NOT an option, but turtling is. Wouldn't the game be more expansive with both as an option?
Blizzard please consider using the DH model with the current LOTV economy model. I would really like to see that tested. Maybe make bases mine out slightly slower and have DH to encourage expansion. Maybe there would be less of a gun to the head feel.
In her show match against Ruff, Scarlett even said she thought DH combined with the LOTV model might be a viable option.
Maybe there is another way to achieve this effect than DH. But DH I believe does do this.
|
On June 20 2015 04:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game.
Dude... seriously... Every thread, no matter what they say, same negativity from you.
Hold on one sec, let me grab a crib... There we go, how's that better? HEY, can someone get me a warm bottle of milk and a bedtime story I can read.
Don't worry, I got you dog... <3
|
On June 20 2015 04:35 Topin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 04:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 20 2015 04:26 Charoisaur wrote:
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game. WoL is still going strong... you can find games quickly at people close to your level unless you are really low Bronze.... and this is with HotS going on sale for $10. I'm sure lots of people won't want to pay the full box price of $60 USD and HotS will keep on rolling no problems. wait wait... is t confirmed that it will cost $60?? wtf?!
this is not an expansion pack. you do not need WoL or HotS to purchase the game.
THe game will be the same boxed priced for all consumers.
For North Americans that means $60 USD.
Canadians should expect it to be either $70 Cdn or $75.
i have 1 response to this.
Blizzard: Take My Money.
|
Can we still push for Lalush depth of micro or is it too late? I want this more than anything announced in LoTV
|
it would be nice if DK said why he likes the lotv economy so much.
Multiple people have analyzed the huge downsides it has e.g. removing defensive playstyles, removing cheeses, making comebacks harder, restricting map design even more; but all he answers is: we like it so it will be implemented.
I know they don't have to implement everything the community wants but at least a more detailed analysis why he thinks their changes are good would be nice.
|
On June 20 2015 04:43 caznitch wrote:
Can we still push for Lalush depth of micro or is it too late? I want this more than anything announced in LoTV
LaLuSh made 7 suggestions in that post
1. Fix separation Radius
Approved
2. Set damage point of all air units to 0
Rejected, though DKim implies some (but not all) air units might be changed.
3. Weapons stop bug
No response from Blizz so far
4. Turret Tracking
Approved
5. Turn Rate
No response
6. Lateral Acceleration
No Response
7. Hovering units
No response
Since DKim is going to do more updates, and the things he responded to are the first suggestions, I expect some form on comment on Turn Rate, Lateral Acceleration, and Hovering Units in the next update (If I had to guess: approve, approve, reject, respectively)
|
While I disagree on some points, this post at least feels like something got actually communicated compared to the last post. I can also agree with the general direction this is going.
Now if only we could touch the topic of a more severe Protoss redesign... Forcefields being in the game is still giving me headaches 
Bringing more counterplay vs FFs (Ravager, Adept, Disruptor) is just putting more bandaids on top of a bandaid.
My current stance is: buy LotV for the campaign and switch to Starbow for multiplayer
|
Really like this changes. There is hope.
|
On June 20 2015 04:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +
Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
RIP SC2. I will certainly not buy lotv with this garbage economy. Hopefully many people will continue playing HotS so I don't have to quit the game.
If this is a garbage economy then I'm wondering what the think HOTS is, which is, secure 3 bases quickly, take your 4th depending on how mid game progresses, only expand when one base mines out, move deathball two inches to the upper left to secure both bases.
LOTV economy is way better, I recognize your name, you cry in every single thread.
|
Finally! YES! This is what you had to do all along Blizzard. News updates, detailed information on what is going on. You need to do this like every week since beta is in rough shape atm. Also, you need to address the issue with heavy server lag on the beta client. A lot of people get network spikes... Even the guy making the adept micro video had lag... like.... cmon now
|
On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job?
I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was "go play BW";
Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was "queen change best change we ever made".
Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said "you don't like it? You get nothing then"
I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a?
|
On June 20 2015 06:09 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job? I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was " go play BW"; Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was " queen change best change we ever made". Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said " you don't like it? You get nothing then" I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a?
Yeah he has really improved.
Community: bio is not viable in tvz -> DK nerfs mech into the ground
Community: we don't like hardcounters -> DK buffs ultras so hard they make bio completely useless
Community: we don't want more and more MOBA like abilities -> DK gives ghosts a new spell with the sole purpose of countering ultras
Community: We don't like the new economy -> DK: but I do and that's what matters.
|
On June 20 2015 06:25 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 06:09 Sapphire.lux wrote:On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job? I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was " go play BW"; Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was " queen change best change we ever made". Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said " you don't like it? You get nothing then" I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a? Yeah he has really improved. Community: bio is not viable in tvz -> DK nerfs mech into the ground Community: we don't like hardcounters -> DK buffs ultras so hard they make bio completely useless Community: we don't want more and more MOBA like abilities -> DK gives ghosts a new spell with the sole purpose of countering ultras Community: We don't like the new economy -> DK: but I do and that's what matters.
I agree on the point that they seem to be to much influenced by MOBAS and have developed a fascination with active abilities. This is a bit ironic considering that whenever they talk about good SC2 micro they give the example of Marine--Baneling: something based on control and not special ability.
Mech has not been nerfed in to the ground IMO. It's still an unknown quantity at this point; the Immortal, SH, Colossus nerf is a very good move. I think that Tanks are underpowered and it's silly to balance mech around OP Hellbats and probably Liberators...but Blizz does not want strong Tanks, it is what it is, sadly.
My problem with the eco change is that they don't openly test the community suggestion but hide behind the "internal testing". Maybe Blizzards way is the better way, but it be nice to actually compare.
|
I don't agree with some of the specific changes that they've outlined for Disruptors. I'd much rather see a damage reduction than a splash radius reduction, and I'd much rather see a slight increase of time in nova form, rather than decrease. I like the buffed speed and lowered cost though.
|
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually.
|
I think the LOTV model is certainly better than the HOTS resource model, but I am still of the opinion that both of them lack depth, compared to alternatives. I would like resource/economy to be a variable again. In the game as it currently is, economic decisions are pretty static.
Glad to see that the team addressed almost all the concerns I had ahahaha. Good stuff!
|
On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually.
They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH).
|
On June 20 2015 07:06 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually. They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH).
Yeah, for some reason they are hating DH with passion while it can very well be combined with what they try to achieve. Hell, DH even gives us a faster early game, which was one of their main objectives with LotV /:
|
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch?
|
On June 20 2015 07:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 07:06 StasisField wrote:On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually. They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH). Yeah, for some reason they are hating DH with passion while it can very well be combined with what they try to achieve. Hell, DH even gives us a faster early game, which was one of their main objectives with LotV /:
Yeah :\ it seems like combining the two, with what they both have to offer and with what Blizzard has in mind, would be the best approach, but with how much Blizzard keeps dismissing it, I doubt we'll ever see it unless someone develops a mod for it. Then, Blizzard might consider the idea.
|
On June 20 2015 07:21 Spect8rCraft wrote:
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch?
I would love to see that.
|
This update, just the simple fact for engaging with the community and making rational arguments, is the best thing that has happened since the beta began.
There might well be some small ray of sunshine, of hope, for LotV after all.
|
Now THAT'S a lot better
See David, wasn't that hard was it?
|
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back.
|
On June 20 2015 08:19 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go. Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back.
The only noticeable balance consequence of 0 damage point is that units with a range advantage receive a buff. As a consequence melee units must be faster. You can easily give all ranged units 0 damage point (except hellion) with these changes. This is a huge quality of life change and its also nonsense that different damage point makes the game harder to master. It takes like 2 mins to get used to a damage point. That's a learning thing, not something that needs to be mastered.
|
On June 20 2015 07:31 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 07:21 Spect8rCraft wrote:
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch? I would love to see that.
There hasn't been, unfortunately. I remember a poster involved with the DH model stating that if DH and LotV were to co-exist, the main bases would likely have to all have 1500 mineral patches, so that DH could achieve its stated goals of reducing the super early game pressure to expand, while still providing an economic benefit for players who can take and hold larger numbers of bases with fewer workers than their opponent.
|
On June 20 2015 08:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 08:19 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go. Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back. The only noticeable balance consequence of 0 damage point is that units with a range advantage receive a buff. As a consequence melee units must be faster. You can easily give all ranged units 0 damage point (except hellion) with these changes. This is a huge quality of life change and its also nonsense that different damage point makes the game harder to master. It takes like 2 mins to get used to a damage point. That's a learning thing, not something that needs to be mastered.
Not only hellions, some units that I think would need to keep their damage point besides hellions would be:
Banshee (I think micro is in a good spot)
Hellbat
Tank (as long as turret tracking gets implemented)
Stalker (because of range)
Immortal
Colossus
Queens
Roaches
Broodlords
Plus unit I'm unsure of:
Thor (this unit is a design mess anyway)
Ghost (they have a high damage attack so I'm not sure how this will affect them)
Liberator (to soon to see but could be cool with other changes, albeit I'm not a fan of the unit
Void ray (what can I say about this one, a unit as worst as the thor in the design department)
Tempest (another ugh unit but whatever)
Ultra (I think that they could use a damage point reduction and speed increase instead of the armor buff, but I remember reading somewhere why this wasn't the case, so its up to discussion)
All my personal opinion, also I may skipped some units where this is the case, I don't know what other people think
|
Not only hellions, some units that I think would need to keep their damage point besides hellions would be:
You "think", but I tested every single interaction at 0 damage point. The only interaction that cannot easily be balanced through faster melee units is the Hellion (since it will be able to kill infinitive Speedlings).
Honestly all of the units you mention make no sense. Some of them would barely be affected, e.g. Hellbats, Immortals and Colosus since they are so slow anyway, but they are going to feel a ton better would 0 damage point. Being able to attack and move back rewards "movement micro" and is a ton more fun than "attack and stand still".
|
Go David, its yo Birthday! This rocks, great feedback, awesome changes. Better movement control is what made me happy.
|
Blizzard: "We do listen to users.
Their impotent wails of despair gives us sustenance."
|
On June 20 2015 08:46 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 08:26 Hider wrote:On June 20 2015 08:19 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go. Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back. The only noticeable balance consequence of 0 damage point is that units with a range advantage receive a buff. As a consequence melee units must be faster. You can easily give all ranged units 0 damage point (except hellion) with these changes. This is a huge quality of life change and its also nonsense that different damage point makes the game harder to master. It takes like 2 mins to get used to a damage point. That's a learning thing, not something that needs to be mastered. Not only hellions, some units that I think would need to keep their damage point besides hellions would be: Banshee (I think micro is in a good spot) Hellbat Tank (as long as turret tracking gets implemented) Stalker (because of range) Immortal Colossus Queens Roaches Broodlords Plus unit I'm unsure of: Thor (this unit is a design mess anyway) Ghost (they have a high damage attack so I'm not sure how this will affect them) Liberator (to soon to see but could be cool with other changes, albeit I'm not a fan of the unit Void ray (what can I say about this one, a unit as worst as the thor in the design department) Tempest (another ugh unit but whatever) Ultra (I think that they could use a damage point reduction and speed increase instead of the armor buff, but I remember reading somewhere why this wasn't the case, so its up to discussion) All my personal opinion, also I may skipped some units where this is the case, I don't know what other people think
In regards to Tempest, I think they could use some even more micro-crippling mechanics to emphasize their role as a siege unit. Lowering their acceleration to be one third of their speed will mean that you have to deliberately position them as you would a Siege Tank to get the best use out of them. Slightly over 3 seconds to stop and fire, it would take, assuming you let them get up to maximum velocity.
I'd prefer Liberators be moved in the direction of greater microability. Lower the size, the cost, and the splash damage, and then maybe add a single target damage within their AtA attack, and I think you'll make it more similar to the maneuverable and exciting Corsair and less like the somewhat limited and sluggish Valkyrie.
While I disagree with you in regards to Roaches' damage point, I agree that it's important they maintain their tanky, slightly sluggish feel. Increasing the backswing in conjunction with lowering the damage point allows them to be more deftly microed, but it doesn't allow them to pick things off and retreat any more easily. Merely to reach the desired position and initiate the engagement. Especially with burrow tactics, I think this would increase their ability to pop up and get a shot in before getting smashed down by opposing units.
|
I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder.
|
On June 20 2015 11:02 GGzerG wrote:I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder.
Did you read the post?
Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
|
On June 20 2015 11:02 GGzerG wrote:I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder.
You might want to try actually reading the post.
Ranked play in the beta
- We hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
|
All I need is the rank ladder and a smoother server. Then I can start grinding games out.
I hope they keep disruptor as it is though, real fun and difficult to use
|
A few good notes in here, but I am still in the camp that overall Blizzard is approaching this whole thing horrendously.
The fact that they cannot see, or even bother to reply to, the inherent issues that currently exist with the economy model and the current state of Protoss gameplay is disheartening on so many levels.
They hype behind LotV is way lower than the hype around HotS. HotS was the game that was supposed to completely change the meta of BL Infest after months of stale, gross gameplay and it really riled up the community behind the changes in SC2.
This time around, LotV is taking forever to make reasonable changes, no one is taking the time to stream it because everything is so broken, no pro players are even bothering to practice, tournaments are, overall, pretty bad - people just log in for their matches and log back out - it's just bad.
A few people have been stating how negative many of us are being, but we simply expect so much more from a company that is attempting to state they support competitive gaming and even introduced a pro series for players which basically stream lined everything. The support for this, and the game itself, has been pretty awful the past year though. It's on the decline and from a player perspective I, and everyone from my time, have pretty much moved on from the competitive side of this game because of how either impossible it is to be a pro player now or the simple fact that even streaming is insanely hard to jump start in this community.
Blizzard really needs to look at what they're doing if they want to gain the respect and trust of their audience. Right now they're going in the way, way wrong direction :/
|
I don't really know what the community would want more. They're already the most open "big developer" I've seen.
Really liked that bit:
With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough.
Edit: I'm not sure about the possible disruptor change though. I'd really like the disruptor to remain a potential game changer, not a moving widow mine.
|
United States4883 Posts
Wow. Like really wow.
If these continue rolling in every week, my confidence in Dayvie, at least as an actual human being, might be restored.
Though he prolly hired a "ghost" writer HOHOHOHO
|
United States4883 Posts
On the actual topic though, I'll state a few thoughts:
1) "Just as an example, internally in design meetings we try our best to detach ourselves from every idea." This quote is beautiful when taken out of context .
2) An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them.
I'm confounded by the community which thinks that having extreme damage points and turning speeds of units makes the game "more complex" for micro interactions. This is a thought process that also comes through in the Dota 2 community, but I'm not sure why making things more awkward to control makes them somehow better. For instance, lings have a damage point of practically zero; they can attack, and then immediately change direction wherever they need to go; as a result, you have a lot of room for different micro techniques, including surrounds, semi-surround kiting, quick disengages, and micro tricks like running lings around mineral lines. Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
3) Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
As far as the Double Harvest model goes, it is designed to be as close to HotS balance as possible to prevent having a complete balance overhaul. The models are not mutually exclusive, but I understand why the development team has steered clear of testing the DH model when they already have a working model that is meeting their goals nicely.
4) We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
Lower cost
Faster speed when activated
Less delay before firing
This is yet another moment where I question the competency of the developers. As we've seen in the past with other units that are difficult to balance (warhounds, shredders, swarm hosts, ravagers), it's not about changing numbers to make the unit work. If it is a well-designed unit, number adjustment should find a fairly huge middle ground; badly designed units become dominant or never used, "overpowered" or "underpowered".
All in all, I'm really glad to have more communication coming out from DK, and it's really nice to see that he's specifically targeting certain threads and addressing some of the ideas in them. However, there still feels like this weird disconnect between what the community actually wants and what Blizzard thinks the community wants at times...it's very puzzling.
|
Good posts by blizzard showing their attention to community, and I personally am happy with the changes made and the things that remain unchanged (battle time, resource model)
|
Canada13387 Posts
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Yes!
|
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
|
On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
Internal testing to back it up? Lol. I guess Daedalus 1.0, the queen patch or the mine nerf had internal testing to back them up too. They have a whole crowd of beta testers available, including pro players. If they really wanted to test DH, they have all the tool available. They just don't want to.
|
On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
But it's not trash! It's actually quite brilliantly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Have you played with it?
Try this. Spread 8x6 workers (8 workers on each base). Compare your mineral income to 16x3 (16 workers on each base). DH 3x3 WORKS! It accomplishes its major goal - allowing players to have more mineral income by spreading the same amount of drones around on more bases.
Now as to whether or not the difference is drastic enough - I think the income gains could be a bit higher. But having 55 drones on 6 bases give me more mineral income than 66 on 3 is pretty fucking awesome, and adds a dynamic that doesn't exist in HOTS, or LOTV.
|
On June 20 2015 15:34 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar. Internal testing to back it up? Lol. I guess Daedalus 1.0, the queen patch or the mine nerf had internal testing to back them up too. They have a whole crowd of beta testers available, including pro players. If they really wanted to test DH, they have all the tool available. They just don't want to.
The queen patch was the single most important boon to the game, what are you talking about?
+ Show Spoiler +I'd never thought I'd say that, even as a joke.
|
I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough.
What are you thinking of? It's not hard at all to master attack cooldowns. The only effect of a damage point (when kiting) is that instead of moving back every X second you move back every X + "value of DP"-seconds. This is just something you need to get used to.
Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
The reason the Hellion needs a damage point is so that it will take damage in the proces from speedlings, which it otherwis wouldn't as it kills Speedlings so fast with the splash damage. With the (0.25) damage point, you will instead have to position the injured Hellions in the back while kiting with the rest of your Hellions. This adds an extra element to the game.
But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
|
On June 20 2015 15:43 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar. But it's not trash! It's actually quite brilliantly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Have you played with it? Try this. Spread 8x6 workers (8 workers on each base). Compare your mineral income to 16x3 (16 workers on each base). DH 3x3 WORKS! It accomplishes its major goal - allowing players to have more mineral income by spreading the same amount of drones around on more bases. Now as to whether or not the difference is drastic enough - I think the income gains could be a bit higher. But having 55 drones on 6 bases give me more mineral income than 66 on 3 is pretty fucking awesome, and adds a dynamic that doesn't exist in HOTS, or LOTV.
I think for some the concept is maybe hard to understand, I really can't think of another reason why someone would shit on the idea.
Maybe players that don't like DH are typically turtle style players that are really happy with a 3 base cap? Idk. The funny thing is that DH would work just fine for them as well. I can't see a style of play that DH cripples... It just seems to open more options in the game.
I still have yet to hear one person properly explain the "pitfalls" of a DH economy. So please, anyone enlighten me... ?
On June 20 2015 12:45 SC2John wrote:3) Show nested quote +Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. As far as the Double Harvest model goes, it is designed to be as close to HotS balance as possible to prevent having a complete balance overhaul. The models are not mutually exclusive, but I understand why the development team has steered clear of testing the DH model when they already have a working model that is meeting their goals nicely.
I'm confused why you didn't advocate for a joining of the two models?
|
But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
Lets say u add 0 damage point to all units. And now you adjust the range and movementspeed.
This could backfire(?)
The movementspeed increase and range increase could maybe work in relation to lets say hellion vs ling but the ling might go out of hand vs other units.
Feels like it would be hard to find a general good solution here, adding damage point and backswings makes this alot easier.
|
On June 20 2015 17:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough. What are you thinking of? It's not hard at all to master attack cooldowns. The only effect of a damage point (when kiting) is that instead of moving back every X second you move back every X + "value of DP"-seconds. This is just something you need to get used to. Show nested quote +
Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
His example of the Hellion shows that David Kim doesn't actually understand the consequences of a damage point very well. The reason the Hellion needs a damage point is so that it will take damage in the proces from speedlings which adds an extra element into the game. To be more specific, you will try to move the injured Hellion to the backline in order for it to avoid taking damage. But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
I also think that the examples and arguments brought by DK are very poor. Sad to hear that arguments from the lead game designer.
However I don't think it is bad to have some damage points, as it helps to balance the speed - range - exposition time trinomium. It works well for some units but it makes other units feel kinda stupid. I think that on air units, damage point is really bad since air units are acceleration-based, meaning that after attacking with a DP they get slow and need to reaccelerate since the default attack method of air units is gliding (slowing). But ground units don't accelerate, they always move at full speed. So it's different cases.
I think the most ignored aspect of damage point is how it helps bringing exposition times for the unit to be damaged while maintaining some qualities of the unit (speed and range) intact, and prevents infinite damage-free kiting. Speed factor is specially important because it also dictates the defensive strength on retreat, since damage points give you time to scape. For example, you can nerf Stalker speed a bit and remove damage point, but then you will make stalkers even worse at retreating against roaches. And then there is a ton of problems asociated to the strength of meele units vs kitings. As most damage points are standard, you will need to apply an standard factor to speed/range of the units. would it change much? It would change a lot of dynamics, since for example damage point helps balancing the strength of stalker kiting early game vs marines .
For example, Hellions are very good at scaping because of the high speed, but they get very exposed to Zerglings when attacking because of the damage point. If you remove the damage point of Hellions, they will become easy to chase and even easier to kill, and if you reduce the range, the attack method of Hellions would need a ton of rebalance. Same applies to Stalkers, since with their high speed and range they could kite and move-shot
It is also important on drop techniques, since 0 damage point Immortal would just fire instantly, so with optimal micro you can't even damage immortals. If the Siege tank had 0.5 damage point with animation (charging the cannon) the SiegeTank-medivac thing would feel weaker.
Damage points/Backswings/animation delays are part of a ton of games and creates some dynamics. Reducing all of them to 0 except the Hellion's is not going to solve much.
|
On June 20 2015 17:47 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic. Lets say u add 0 damage point to all units. And now you adjust the range and movementspeed. This could backfire(?) The movementspeed increase and range increase could maybe work in relation to lets say hellion vs ling but the ling might go out of hand vs other units. Feels like it would be hard to find a general good solution here, adding damage point and backswings makes this alot easier.
I am not really thinking of the Speedling here. Its movement speed is already high enough which makes it capable of dealing damage when enemy units attempt to kite it. It will therefore not be noticeably affected by 0 damage point on Immortal, Hydralisk and Roaches. Rather the more obvious candidates for movement speed increase is the Zealot and the Ultralisk (instead of +2 armor, increase its movement speed off-creep).
In terms of air units, the obvious candidates are Oracle, Broodlord, Tempest, Banshee and Viking. The former, will however, continue to be a mess due to low acceleration value and fast attack speed, so it won't be noticeable improved. The latter 4 could benefit from 0 DP along with small range reductions.
(Range reduction probably wouldn't be needed for the Banshee if terrans could build turrets without ebay.).
|
If Blizzard would write these posts every two weeks everyone would be much happier, and I'm even sure that the design would improve by virtue of David Kim being more accountable for his actions by having to justify them in public.
Not that I agree with his examples. And I still don't understand Blizzard's internal policies. You sometimes get the impression that they just ignore every idea out there, but then they do admit in posts like this that they've done "internal testing", but again I'm not sure about the quality of this or whether it's comprehensive at all.
|
I think the most ignored aspect of damage point is how it helps bringing exposition times for the unit to be damaged while maintaining some qualities of the unit (speed and range) intact, and prevents infinite damage-free kiting.
You can obtain the same thing by making the kited unit faster than the unit that kites it. In this proces you avoid the "infinitive kiting without taking damage"-problem.
Or if its absolutely neccesary that one unit has a certain minimum speed, you can adjust attack ranges so the unit needs to get into "danger"-zone before it attacks (where it will take damage) but immediately afterwards they can move back.
For instance you could have a group of Vultures moving into "danger zone" to snipe a Hydralisk ---> Move back --> Wait for cooldown to come back up --> move in again.
In this proces they are making the best out of the long attack cooldown by moving out of the attack range of the Hydralisks, and when they are ready to attack again, they return to snipe another Hydralisk. Had they stayed to attack the Hydralisks, they would easily have lost the battle as the Hydralisks attacks much faster. This type of micro isn't possible with a damage point above 0.1.
For example, you can nerf Stalker speed a bit and remove damage point, but then you will make stalkers even worse at retreating against roaches. And then there is a ton of problems asociated to the strength of meele units vs kitings.
I know there are specific situations where you need a damage point. In fact when Starbow had a Viking around a year ago, I suggested to give it a damage point as a movement speed change or range would have unintended consequences (http://starbowmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=524)
But your job as a designer should be make it fun to control units. When the majority of the target group says they prefer responsive 0 DP units, you should use a damage point as a last-resort thing. With regards to the Stalker, it should be able to function fine w/ 5.5 range.
It is also important on drop techniques, since 0 damage point Immortal would just fire instantly, so with optimal micro you can't even damage immortals.
If you give other ranged units such as Roaches, bio, Hydralisks 0 DP as well, they will also be able to deal their damage out faster to the Immortal. The only unit that will suffer is the Hellion due to it maintaining the 0.25 damage point. So generally, you won't be able to make some type of infinitive drop Immortal "kiting" micro.
Therefore, the consequences won't be as dramastic as you make it out to be, but it's true that its a buff to Immortal drops. But isn't this a good thing? Especially since Blizzard seem interested in more Immortal dropplay, and with this change you might actually be able to reduce the pickup range of the Warp Prism.
|
Hider, you didnt answer my post. "Will it not have unindended consequences", the hellion vs ling was just an example.
Roaches have a projectile so they will not be able to damage those 0 damage point immortals microed from a warpprism.
A more elegant solution would be to put a delay on the warpprism, 0,5-1 sec before the units from the warpprism can fire.
The thing with backswing and damage point = Position matter more. Easier to retreat.
In this proces they are making the best out of the long attack cooldown by moving out of the attack range of the Hydralisks, and when they are ready to attack again, they return to snipe another Hydralisk. Had they stayed to attack the Hydralisks, they would easily have lost the battle as the Hydralisks attacks much faster. This type of micro isn't possible with a damage point above 0.1
Vultures have a damage point and its high in broodwar. It works anyway cuz of the move while shoot type of micro in that game.
Same with mutalisks, they can move and shoot at the same time with micro but they do have a high damage point or maybe it was backswing with a big deacceleration. They are really hard to control in that game btw, requires some really hard practice.
They are more ways to add micro to units.
EXAMPLE:
Marines could be able to walk and shoot at the same time but with a lower movement speed.
I could see this potentially be alot easier to tweak into the game so it fits vs alot of units and not just vs one, compared to adding 0 damagepoint/backswing to all units.
Again, i think it would be hard to maintain a general good relationship between alot of units with 0 damagepoint.
Zealot vs marine might work decent or maybe well but the zealots might go out of hand to easy vs other units etc.
I remember some folks over at starbow a long time ago trying hydralisks vs zealots with 0 damage each, they adjusted the movementspeed etc of the units.
They came to conclusion that it didnt work since it went one sided what ever they did.
|
Roaches have a projectile so they will not be able to damage those 0 damage point immortals microed from a warpprism.
But they will be able to deal damage because the load/unload is not 0 seconds (but rather something like 0.2 seconds). As long as the unit has 0 damage point, a projectile is not enough to make a unit that is close to the warpprism/immortal not capable of dealing damage.
As a proof, remember that you actually already have a 6 range unit with 0 damage point that deals extra damage vs armored in the game. Yes the Maurauder functions like that, and I have never heard anyone complain about how imbalanced instant load/unload is due to its 0 damage point. Unload delay is only needed for units with much higher range.
Vultures have a damage point and its high in broodwar. It works anyway cuz of the move while shoot type of micro in that game .
Vultures can clearly attack instantly (thus 0 damage point), but instead they have a low acceleration value (after attacking) that can be circumvented through patrol micro. The effect of this is something that could be compared to a "-0.1" damage point, since it actually can attack and move back faster than a unit with 0 damage point in Sc2.
Zealot vs marine might work decent or maybe well but the zealots might go out of hand to easy vs other units etc.
Versus which units? You set damage point to 0 for ranged units = They become better at kiting
Then you buff the speed of Zealots/Ultralisks --> They can still deal damage while being kited.
Will it require some balance tweaking to get the balance right? Sure, but that's the case for every change you make.
|
Ok, so ive been trying to think of how further to increase the incentive to expand more. In my opinion its very hard to make a larger amount of expansions mainly because of the supply that workers use.
What about something along these lines :
Every nexus, command center and hatchery gave "worker only supply" as in every Nexus gives you 10 Probe supply orbitals 7, and hatcheries 5. This would cap your supply at 250 - 200 + (50 bonus)
If they increase the incentive to make inbase nexus, this should be equal to command centers. Hatcheries are also the production facilities and can be made at a rate of 2/base if really needed.
|
As a proof, remember that you actually already have a 6 range unit with 0 damage point that deals extra damage vs armored in the game. Yes the Maurauder functions like that, and I have never heard anyone complain about how imbalanced instant load/unload is due to its 0 damage point. Unload delay is only needed for units with much higher range.
Not proof of anything.
Immortal vs ling/roach or pure roach is a crucial part of pvz(or atleast was).
Nothing can shoot up while stalkers usually involve for protoss in pvt that can shoot the medivacs.
Zealots have no damage point btw so they can still hit those marauders.
Vultures can clearly attack instantly (thus 0 damage point), but instead they have a low acceleration value (after attacking) that can be circumvented through patrol micro. The effect of this is something that could be compared to a "-0.1" damage point, since it actually can attack and move back faster than a unit with 0 damage point in Sc2.
You might be correct about the vulture, you are still wrong that its impossible to have that scenario if units dont have 0 damage point.
Versus which units? You set damage point to 0 for ranged units = They become better at kiting
Then you buff the speed of Zealots/Ultralisks --> They can still deal damage while being kited.
Will it require some balance tweaking to get the balance right? Sure, but that's the case for every change you make.
Thats why i said it might go out of hand=Impossible to balance.
Versus which units?
Thats exactly the question i was asking, i cant know since i dont know the movementspeed yet. And what relationship that is supposed to be set.
|
The thing with backswing and damage point = Position matter more. Easier to retreat.
To an extent, yes, however the biggest reasons its impossible for certain compositions to retreat is due to huge movement speed assymetries. When the zerg army/bio army moves at 3+ movement speed and all of the expensive protoss units move at 2.25, you are creating a dynamic where a protoss is basically all-in when moving out on the map. He simply cannot afford to lose the battle as he has no way of retreating.
Damage point only plays a minor role here. The most important thing is to make sure that ranged ground units (across races) have somewhat similar movement speed. Preferably between 2.75 and 3.25.
Melee units should generally be 0.5-0.75 faster than ranged units. This makes sure that escaping is realistic while avoiding the infinite kiting problem.
The only situation where it makes sense to have a noticeably lower movement speed is when you want to define certain units as being positional or defensive. But the inbetween (2-2.5 speed) is generally a bad idea.
Thats exactly the question i was asking, i cant know since i dont know the movementspeed yet. And what relationship that is supposed to be set.
Ideally I would suggest to remove Zealot charge and replace it with a constant 3.4 movement speed. (Concussive shell should also be reworked in this proces).
Ultralisk off creep could be 3.75 with lower creep speed modifier (and lower model size), and no armor buffs.
Not proof of anything.
Immortal vs ling/roach or pure roach is a crucial part of pvz(or atleast was).
Nothing can shoot up while stalkers usually involve for protoss in pvt that can shoot the medivacs.
Ever played bio vs Roaches while feeling that Maurauder drop micro was way too strong without any counterplay? No? Me neither.
That's the important part to understand here: It's a buff to Immortal drops, but it doesn't make them unkillable/extremely overpowered/broken.
It's a mistake to argue that a unit shouldn't receive 0 damage point because that change (when viewed in isolation) might make it slightly too strong in some situations. Instead the intention should be to make the unit fun to control and find a way to balance it around this element.
The Hellion is an example of a unit that wold be broken with 0 damage point. You cannot adjust other numbers to make this unit work well with 0 damage point. But that's not the case for any other unit in the game.
Broken =/ Slightly imbalanced.
Slightly imbalanced = Can fit into the game if balanced properly.
|
I'm not sure about other topics but can't agree with this part:
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.
Protoss was my main race in WoL and I switched to Terran in HotS so I'll focus on these two races. I disagree because I think that there are situations in sc2, especially in TvP, when the battles are way too short. If a 25 minute game gets decided in a battle that lasts slightly longer than Psi Storm's duration I can't call it a good pace. Please note that I'm not calling storms overpowered, I just think some unit compositions die or kill stuff too fast. I'm not saying all battles or unit compositions in sc2 are like this but certainly some of them are and I think it there is a room for improvement. The problem (at least in my opinion it is a problem) has a few aspects that need to be discussed separately.
Firstly, I am aware that spells with high damage output like Psi Storm or Disruptor's active can be dodged. Generally I don't mind the existence of such spells but in some cases they do so much damage that the battle is over before you can say their full name out loud. And it's not like the losing players has to retreat, his whole army is simply gone. It's good that you can micro your units to avoid such distasters but it's bad that you can't micro yourself out of getting absolutely destroyed after you get hit.
"Glass cannon" unit compositions are another problem. They offer huge dps but their durability is really low which results in 10 seconds battles, regardless of who is winning them. If a Terran goes full bio or bio mine against Protoss you can't really expect to see long, micro intensive battles. Yes, Terran harass can be very exciting to watch but at some point the players will have to fight and usually it's not pretty. I understand that sometimes the game forces the player to use glass cannons and I don't blame them for that but I think it's a design problem that should be fixed.
On the other hand the battles between very durable compositions like roach wars in ZvZ are really boring, so obviously high dps units are necessary. My point is that the game shouldn't allow unit compositions that don't have any tankiness whatsoever unless it's a strictly harassment focused composition with an option to transition into something else. Mutalisk based compositions are a good example because the Zerg can transition into Hive units later. Most of the time full bio Terran is stuck making bio till the end of the game.
Some people could say that only noobs want the battles to last longer because they're bad and want the game to be more forgiving. I can't agree with that because I don't see how battles that last a few seconds are healthy for the game. Nobody wants to watch that and nobody wants to see his army evaporate before he can do anything about it. Just because something makes the game harder doesn't mean it's good.
Last thing I want to discuss isn't strictly related to the pacing of sc2 battles but I think it's worth mentioning. In my opinion the game has a problem with "20 min no rush" compositions. They work like a time bomb and are very boring to watch because we're forced to observe like 10-15 minutes of macroing and maybe some light harassment before the big, usually game-deciding battle. Blizzard already addressed this with fixing VR-Colossus, BL-Infestor, Swarm Hosts or Avilomech but I think it's still a problem. Phoenix-Collosus in PvT is an example of a boring but relatively balanced unit composition. The Protoss player doesn't intend to attack before maxing out because he doesn't have any offensive tools and the other player can't force him to move out. I think such unit compositions should be patched out and replaced with something that gives both players offensive options at any point of the game.
On June 20 2015 19:59 weikor wrote:
Ok, so ive been trying to think of how further to increase the incentive to expand more. In my opinion its very hard to make a larger amount of expansions mainly because of the supply that workers use.
What about something along these lines :
Every nexus, command center and hatchery gave "worker only supply" as in every Nexus gives you 10 Probe supply orbitals 7, and hatcheries 5. This would cap your supply at 250 - 200 + (50 bonus)
If they increase the incentive to make inbase nexus, this should be equal to command centers. Hatcheries are also the production facilities and can be made at a rate of 2/base if really needed.
Do you mean 200+50 supply for workers and units combined or completely separate supply limits for workers and units? I like both options, don't know if they're the right direction but experimenting with them wouldn't hurt.
|
Honestly if we are going to look at the supply cap (which I think is an excellent discussion to have) I think we first need to look at the efficiency of mining (here we go again) since thats where the majority of the supply is held in, and the overall supply cost of units. Honestly I see no harm in dropping supply costs of roach, hydra, tanks, colossus, etc.. if it means more supply to use for harassing forces.
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Yup.
The only thing that's still disappointing to me; Their wording that indicates they think it's either DH (or better, no worker pairing) or the current LotV model.
Blizzard, if you're reading this; Remove worker pairing. Doesn't matter how much minerals the bases have, if the patches are all the same amount or not, how many starting workers there are, just remove worker pairing. It doesn't do the game any good.
|
After watching LOLDROPS win TvP again in Game2 of today's [S2SL] Grand Finals Season 2 2015, I've come to realize what they mean by the DH eco model not making much difference.
LOLDROPS are too powerful for your opponents to have more than three bases!!!
Once again, the medivac and other terrain/map negating units ruin anything possibly good coming out of SC2.
|
United States7483 Posts
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh*
|
On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh*
You are completely right and I totally agree.
They're trying to chance the game for new players, not for the remaining ones. I fear that that isn't going to work.
|
Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it.
But he's so enamoured by this type of gameplay, which I deem super gay, that he's doubling down on it again in LoTV. Faster medivac unloads, unkillable nydus, overlord carry upgrades, and warp prism pickup range increase. WTF!!!
Just look at the top 3 complaints in the TL LoTV section.
1. General dissatisfaction of unit design
2. Battles end too quickly
3. Eco model
All three are heavily influenced by this drop emphasizing gamestyle.
1. Every unit must accomodate the drop style gameplay
2. Battles end quickly because there's no room for retreat -- your back is against the wall already defending against drops
3. Eco model is useless because you can't defend more than three bases against loldrops
They should really rename the game to Dropcraft and be done with it.
|
On June 20 2015 23:32 jotmang-nojem wrote:
Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it.
Main reason for photon overcharge isn't loldrops but prevent heavy one base pvp.
|
well I remember his saying protoss needed it to free up units to go on offense. That's why protoss also received Recall. Otherwise, they'd be too pigeonholed to do anything but defend.
Doesn't change the fact that protoss would die the way loldrops are used nowadays without photon overcharge. Just look at today's game. Chintoss defended drop after drop but just one mistake and the game was over.
|
Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it.
Reverse order. Medivac speed boost was implemented partly due to Photon Overcharge making dropplay oboslete.
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 20 2015 17:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 15:43 Qwyn wrote:On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar. But it's not trash! It's actually quite brilliantly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Have you played with it? Try this. Spread 8x6 workers (8 workers on each base). Compare your mineral income to 16x3 (16 workers on each base). DH 3x3 WORKS! It accomplishes its major goal - allowing players to have more mineral income by spreading the same amount of drones around on more bases. Now as to whether or not the difference is drastic enough - I think the income gains could be a bit higher. But having 55 drones on 6 bases give me more mineral income than 66 on 3 is pretty fucking awesome, and adds a dynamic that doesn't exist in HOTS, or LOTV. I think for some the concept is maybe hard to understand, I really can't think of another reason why someone would shit on the idea. Maybe players that don't like DH are typically turtle style players that are really happy with a 3 base cap? Idk. The funny thing is that DH would work just fine for them as well. I can't see a style of play that DH cripples... It just seems to open more options in the game. I still have yet to hear one person properly explain the "pitfalls" of a DH economy. So please, anyone enlighten me... ? Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 12:45 SC2John wrote:3) Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. As far as the Double Harvest model goes, it is designed to be as close to HotS balance as possible to prevent having a complete balance overhaul. The models are not mutually exclusive, but I understand why the development team has steered clear of testing the DH model when they already have a working model that is meeting their goals nicely. I'm confused why you didn't advocate for a joining of the two models?
I have been advocating for a fusion of both models ^^. I honestly think that the DH model (AKA breaking worker pairing while still maintaining a predictable and repeatable income curve) does nothing but improve the game in pretty much every aspect while opening up tons of strategic diversity.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/487725-picking-up-the-dh-project#4
However, the difficulty of getting Blizzard to spend time adopting this model is more related to the fact that they already have a model that meets their goals accordingly and its simply not worth their time to recreate DH and slightly balance accordingly. This is why I believe it's up to the community to create a better version of SC2 rather than following Blizzard blindly with the idea that, "don't worry, they'll come through" like we did for 2 years with BL/infestor, and then 4 years for decent UI changes, and then 5 years for an economy that prevents hard turtling. -_-
|
On June 21 2015 00:29 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it. Reverse order. Medivac speed boost was implemented partly due to Photon Overcharge making dropplay oboslete.
You're right. Dug this up:
Terran Changes
1. Redesign Thor ability/Raven seeker missile
2. Push early game Reaper a bit more
3. Hellbats better against melee units, not necessarily better vs. Ranged.
4. We'd really like to see more Medivac usage like we saw in Wings for a time in the past. Currently thinking on a cooldown based speed booster ability.
5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak.
6. Buff mech in general - we'd like to maybe test combining the vehicle and air upgrades at the armory.
lol, "we'd like to see more medivac usage", "we'd like to boost bio late game"... now that's all we see all day everyday from terran. Didn't he realize these changes would result in one-dimensional gameplay? He's supposed to be the lead designer right? The one that's supposed to know so much more than the community. Now he wants to boost it more!
Anyway, still doesn't change the fact that protoss would die the way loldrops are used nowadays without photon overcharge. Still doesn't change the fact that loldrops are all we see from terran against protoss.
|
On June 20 2015 19:59 weikor wrote:
Ok, so ive been trying to think of how further to increase the incentive to expand more. In my opinion its very hard to make a larger amount of expansions mainly because of the supply that workers use.
What about something along these lines :
Every nexus, command center and hatchery gave "worker only supply" as in every Nexus gives you 10 Probe supply orbitals 7, and hatcheries 5. This would cap your supply at 250 - 200 + (50 bonus)
If they increase the incentive to make inbase nexus, this should be equal to command centers. Hatcheries are also the production facilities and can be made at a rate of 2/base if really needed.
I think dividing worker and army supply in some way is a very good idea. Not necessariliy by main structures but an upgrade to overlord/supply depot/pylon that increases worker supply could also work. Extra worker supply would make the late game have much more fights, back and forth action by providing players with higher income and higher army supply.
Right now I always get the feeling that I could expand more but the supply limit does not let me do this so I feel like I can't capitalize on my advantage economically. I've been seeing this as an issue since first wol beta, the supply limit always felt too small. I dont know why but I never got that feeling when playing starcraft 1, reaching full supply was a much more bigger deal and more rare so I didnt feel limited by it.
|
On June 20 2015 23:45 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 23:32 jotmang-nojem wrote:
Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it. Main reason for photon overcharge isn't loldrops but prevent heavy one base pvp.
Lol. How's that working out for them?
|
That's the important part to understand here: It's a buff to Immortal drops, but it doesn't make them unkillable/extremely overpowered/broken.
I thought i was clear here in saying that IF ITS A PROBLEM, just put a delay on the warpprism.
You missed that part or something?
So no, iam not arguing that immortals might be to good with a 0 damage point, thats AN EASY SOLUTION as i said before.
...
|
|
|
On June 21 2015 02:08 DinoMight wrote:
Thank you for this post.
Second this.
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
YES! PLEASE MY MAN!
Really appreciate all the work you and staff have put into eco testing, it's really an amazing accomplishment what you've presented so far. You and John and everyone else PROPS.
|
I think raising the supply cap may be a novel way of decreasing all the negative aspects of army battles and micro. +1 to worker supply based on number of nexus/cc/hatch
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together.
The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly.
The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.)
I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
|
On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
Well, I'm hoping they're going to tune down the current LotV model. The more they do that the more the removal of worker pairing can show its effects.
Even though they still don't seem to understand the quickness of this response gives me hope at least.
|
On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations.
For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options.
I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game.
Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH.
|
Sticking with this half patch nonsense ensures I will never play this game past the campaign. I hate the LotV economy so damn much. Between that and the shit state of Protoss...
God damnit, Blizzard, why do you hurt my heart so?
|
On June 21 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Sticking with this half patch nonsense ensures I will never play this game past the campaign. I hate the LotV economy so damn much. Between that and the shit state of Protoss...
God damnit, Blizzard, why do you hurt my heart so?
Agreed. The lotv economy is horrible. It blows my mind DK still wants to implement it although so many people hate it.
The 12 worker start is even worse because it removes any cheeses and makes the early game very repetive.
Hopefully lotv will fail so hard that tournaments will go back to hots.
|
On June 21 2015 08:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects. I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations. For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options. I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game. Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH.
You bring up some good points.
For one thing, it sounds like our experience playing and watching the beta is quite different, which is fascinating to me. I haven't run into very many turtling players and was under the impression that it was not feasible on LotV.
If that's true, then it seems like adding DH would be somewhat pointless, as it's primarily there to make the turtling vs wasteful dynamic work properly.
If turtling is a feasible option in the LotV model, for example, the carrier situation you mention, then I suppose our situation isn't terribly different.
I think it's worth noting that the turtling player now only has about 75% of the resources to work with per base now, which is a pretty serious blow.
You also say that the LotV model doesn't break the three base cap. This is technically true, though as each base's half patch mines out it basically becomes half a base, so it seems like it's sometimes necessary to mine fully from 4-5 bases. It is also beneficial for players to pre-empt the patches mining out and take bases sooner than they need to.
The LotV model definitely doesn't give the 2 vs 6 base dynamic that you see in BW, but it seems to me that it gives another interesting alternative that forces a lot of fun action.
I'll keep thinking about how turtling should function in LotV. That's an interesting question.
|
While the LotV model is interesting in that it tends to "force" action it's inherently bad because it limits options and multidimensional play.
The BW economic model (and DH is the closest we have to that model) is incredible, best I've seen in an RTS, there's no shame in going "back" to it.
One has to accept that a lot of the stuff that exists in BW is, quite amazingly, impossible to improve.
|
It's nice that Blizzard is consistently transparent with the community, even if we don't agree with all of their decisions for the game. Thanks, Blizz 
|
On June 21 2015 10:04 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 08:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects. I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations. For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options. I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game. Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH. You bring up some good points. For one thing, it sounds like our experience playing and watching the beta is quite different, which is fascinating to me. I haven't run into very many turtling players and was under the impression that it was not feasible on LotV. If that's true, then it seems like adding DH would be somewhat pointless, as it's primarily there to make the turtling vs wasteful dynamic work properly. If turtling is a feasible option in the LotV model, for example, the carrier situation you mention, then I suppose our situation isn't terribly different. I think it's worth noting that the turtling player now only has about 75% of the resources to work with per base now, which is a pretty serious blow. You also say that the LotV model doesn't break the three base cap. This is technically true, though as each base's half patch mines out it basically becomes half a base, so it seems like it's sometimes necessary to mine fully from 4-5 bases. It is also beneficial for players to pre-empt the patches mining out and take bases sooner than they need to. The LotV model definitely doesn't give the 2 vs 6 base dynamic that you see in BW, but it seems to me that it gives another interesting alternative that forces a lot of fun action. I'll keep thinking about how turtling should function in LotV. That's an interesting question.
You make good points as well, about the bases at 75% of current strength and that people are forced to expand through mining out.
I had my first experience with this yesterday in LOTV. It is an interesting feeling to have in a game, and might I add a disappointing one. Aside from preempting a "mine out" from this model I have 0% incentive to take another base over 3, which feels bad to me. If the goal is to get more people to expand I would think reward is a MUCH stronger incentive then punishment (if you don't expand you will mine out a base and be on a weaker economy).
The latter leaves you in a position to only expand when needed, because why on earth would you expand past 3 bases if you gain nothing from it? You would just end up hurting you total army amount and value.
Expanding from this position (past the 3 base cap) only hurts economically until the exact moment I mine out and need to shift my workers to the fresh base. If you have timed that right, then you just continue to gain the benefit of the 3 base economy you had previously and nothing greater. There is really no incentive to do anything past that, and what happens if the other player is able to deny my base over and over, then I essentially just die faster on a 2 base economy (which I actually don't mind because I think game length can get long and bloated).
As players begin to master the game and learn to hold all ins better, the game goes longer, and it will just begin to center around denying and killing that fourth base. Welcome to the world of zerg in hots, at least in zvt it was about denying the fourth, and zvz it was all about denying the third, pvz had timing pushes in wol but only to avoid the end result of BL investor before it happened... As time goes on the focus will be forced toward denying this fourth, and then players will have to shift focus to developing strategies for holding it (or worse Blizzard comes in and starts nerfing or turning bases in cannons, cough cough protoss which makes the base a fortress). Look at each iteration of starcraft 2, wol, hots, lots of variety at the start, then as time goes by and people master the holds many things become less viable and game length develops.
People start to say, "What is the end game for me, I need to make it to the ideal army to maximize my chance to win, anything else is just a gamble."
Broodlord infestor, any protoss death ball, terran mech with ravens. People have shown that this is the preferred strategy overtime, to make it to the ideal army first before their opponent and then kill them or mine them out. And if they can then they have maximized their chance to win. Anything other than that is considered a "cheese" or "all in." While cheese do work, they will always be considered the equivalent of an intelligent and estimated gamble.
While I like the current LOTV model better than HOTS, it doesn't do anything to change this dynamic, which I think leads to the stale sort of gameplay everyone is complaining about. I get better, I learn to hold all ins, I expand only when I have to because I gain no advantage from doing it at any point in the game before i start mining out, I get to the 100% ideal army and attack. This is the sc2 and LOTV progression with the current economy model, I am almost 100% certain. I feel like fucking Nostradamus with this lol.
What if while you were on your 3 bases trying to approach this ideal army your opponent took 3 more bases onto of his 3 for the a total of 6 and actually gained a mineral advantage from that? While you are growing your army he would be forced to leave the safety of his base with what he has or some small force and try to deny some of these bases or risk you reaching the ideal army faster than him. Or he could harass. Or he could take more bases of his own. Or he could feel somewhat secure that he has an army advantage at that exact moment of expansion (because the other player spent their minerals on 3 extra bases) and go straight for a winning blow by attacking his main.
The only thing I can see coming from DH is a more diverse set of options I still have yet to hear one compelling argument against. Again, please someone make a case against it?
Maybe you could explain what you mean by a fast wasteful player vs. a slow cost efficient player in the context of DH? To me this doesn't seem like the reason DH was created.
|
On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh*
to me .. they are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled.
as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing...
i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys
and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game.
so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time.
don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though.
|
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
|
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it.
|
On June 21 2015 15:02 Foxxan wrote:
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it.
Unless different mineral patches are mining out at different times, they should all be mining out at once right? Even if they mine out in a stagger way, you still really only ever have 3 bases mining. Even if that is the case would that offer any kind of mineral benefit?
If all but two patches in my main mine out (they won't last much longer anyway) and then I move the majority of my workers to a fourth base, in the LOTV economy I would just be getting the same mineral income I had before when all my workers were still on my main, right?
I feel like I am failing to see your point here. If my minerals mine out in my main and I transfer to a fourth, that is still just 3 base eco with 8 gas. Same as in HOTS.
|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
Well said, I also noticed this. That statement actually had me lose more trust in Blizzard.
It strikes me as a manipulation of words, and deceptive. I can't imagine DK not understanding what the majority vote was in that poll.
|
On June 21 2015 14:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh* to me .. t hey are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled. as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing... i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game. so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well. i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time. don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though.
Yeah, and I don't want to play Command & Conquer. I want to play Starcraft.
|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
Why? Well, because Blizzard doesn't want battles to last longer, so they say players want that too. Unsurprising.
|
On June 21 2015 16:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll). Well said, I also noticed this. That statement actually had me lose more trust in Blizzard. It strikes me as a manipulation of words, and deceptive. I can't imagine DK not understanding what the majority vote was in that poll.
This is what he does all the time. He manipulates examples in all of his posts. E.g. I want damage point on air units because it increases the skillcap. Let me use an example of a specific ground unit with a damage point of 0.25 as a proof of why a damage point of 0.167 on Vikings, Oracles and Phoenixes are needed.
He always just looks for that little argument to support him not changing something, and then wrongly interprets the argument. Its incredibly annoying.
Never does he say something like this most people find this type of design enjoyable and therefore we have removed unit Z and added unit Y to replace it. Nono, it's always like this XXX increases the skillcap and therefore its good..
David Kim - besides all of the various subconcepts of gamedesign he doesn't understand - doesn't understand his main goal either. That is to make the game fun to play. If everyone hates Oracles and Cyclones, it doesn't matter what type of argument you use to attempt to convince the reader that its good becasue it has a high skillcap. Your job is to make a fun game!!!
|
On June 21 2015 16:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 15:02 Foxxan wrote:
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it. Unless different mineral patches are mining out at different times, they should all be mining out at once right? Even if they mine out in a stagger way, you still really only ever have 3 bases mining. Even if that is the case would that offer any kind of mineral benefit? If all but two patches in my main mine out (they won't last much longer anyway) and then I move the majority of my workers to a fourth base, in the LOTV economy I would just be getting the same mineral income I had before when all my workers were still on my main, right? I feel like I am failing to see your point here. If my minerals mine out in my main and I transfer to a fourth, that is still just 3 base eco with 8 gas. Same as in HOTS.
Yes still the same income as in hots but more bases mining. Saying 3base cap feels wrong in that sense.
|
wouldnt the easiest way simply be having 4 normal and 4 gold mineral patches at 1500 each?
blizzard is happy because gold mines faster and forces expansions, tl is happy because its like dh, u make mass expansions mining only gold with same amount of workers (instead of 3 bases, caps at 6, more than enough). it even has the benefit of not having to reduce total amount of minerals per base like lotv eco forces which tl hates and speeds up game because of faster mining of gold which blizzard loves (compared to hots). its also incredibly easy to implement, just edit maps. we could even go further and make gasses like that too, one normal and one gold gas. at least its what i imagine coudl be a good solution to eco for both sides.
|
please increase supply limit to 250 at least, that would also make late game have more fights
right now all blizz is doing is decreasing the time it takes to reach supply limit even lower, making it feel even more limiting
or make workers only take 1/2 supply
|
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
|
On June 21 2015 20:17 Charoisaur wrote:
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
cheese is still here, it just comes in a different time
|
Yeah i love the update from blizzard! I don't understand why people are so offensive against the lotv eco system. Do you people read the second paragraph, I really liked that approach. Instead of jerking around that this idea is the best, and this moddel is the best and why doesn't blizz hand over power to ME!
The DH moddel doesn't solve the problems in the current state. Maybe we can improve it but that takes a lot of time. The Lotv system seems to work fine. I liked the response from blizzard to focus on other areas of the game like dmg point and separation radius.
Thanks Blizzard!!
|
On June 21 2015 20:25 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 20:17 Charoisaur wrote:
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution. cheese is still here, it just comes in a different time
not sure about this. The faster economic growth compared to the completion of proxy buildings make them considerably weaker. for example by the time a proxy rax build hits vs zerg the pool from a hatch first build is already done
|
Disruptor being too all-or-nothing[list][*]We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment. - We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
maybe instead of making them faster it would be better to make them much tankier without the nova so they don't get picked of as easily.
|
On June 21 2015 19:58 summerloud wrote:
please increase supply limit to 250 at least, that would also make late game have more fights
Wrong. Due to terrible design in 200/200 fights, we see too much one sided fights in late games. I prefer a lower income per minute, I just hate to see/make 60supply per minute. It lookes more a wave to next wave, which is pretty boring for me.
From most 150 or 100 supply fights have been super entertaining.
|
Sigh.. I'll give it to you Blizzard, your clearly are trying harder, but you still seem out of touch to me. Players have mastered micro?? Hellion micro is a joke, and super easy. By not reducing the damage point you keep the skill ceiling with the unit artificially low. Same with most units. All micro entails on most units is moving them as a big glob, and hitting the "s" key when their attack cooldown has expired, its not very difficult. Is it any surprise that arguably the most microable unit in the game is the marine, which has one of the lowest damage point? Or that another of the most microable units, blink stalkers, are most effective when blinked individually? Sure you can blink them in small groups and still increase their damage potential, but there is almost always room for improvement with them by more quickly blinking smaller numbers of them at a time.
And sure you have to set up a concave in order to achieve maximum unit effectiveness with most units, but that does not require micro. That involves pre-fight setup, or boxclicking a bunch of units during a fight and moving them to the side, hardly something that is difficult to do. So by using the lackluster excuse that you don't want to change the damage points because people have already "mastered" micro in the game is disheartening at best. Especially when you change other things that people have also mastered so drastically, such as the economy. Hadn't people mastered builds and timings based off the old economy as well? Something that was by far more difficult to learn than Sc2 micro imo. And this type of decision making is hardly limited to micro or the economy, which is why I absolutely cannot see myself buying LotV when it comes out, or watching pro tournaments for that matter, which is unfortunate, because I have devoted a lot of time to learning and loving this game, but I just can't get behind it anymore
|
Nice. More and more confident about LotV overall.
|
On June 21 2015 18:40 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh* to me .. t hey are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled. as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing... i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game. so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well. i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time. don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though. Yeah, and I don't want to play Command & Conquer. I want to play Starcraft.
they tried pacing in a way that had some semblance of Brood War. and they've given up on pleasing the hard core Brood War community... they've decided to go back to Brood War any how.
now they've done their "focus groups" and discovered that the general PC game player likes shorter games.
combine this with all the ex-C&C guys on the SC2 team.. and this is what you get.
i got no problems at all with an action packed.. crazy ass.. topsy turvy 7 minutes of frenetic decision making with the game ending in 7 minutes... clearly the "average game time" will be higher than 7 minutes...
i think action packed 7 minute games will happen on a more than occasional basis.
look for SC2, Heroes , Hearthstone, and Overwatch to all have similar game times because of research Blizzard has done regardingg game time lengths that the typical PC Gamer prefers.
this is a lot of speculation on my part.. but this is what i think is going on.
On June 22 2015 01:34 Survivor61316 wrote:
Sigh.. I'll give it to you Blizzard, your clearly are trying harder, but you still seem out of touch to me.
Blizz is only communicating more. That's it.
Blizzard has always tried hard. Play any other RTS not made by Blizzard and its super clear Blizzard puts far more effort into their games than Relic, EA, Creative Assemby, etc etc.
|
On June 21 2015 20:43 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote + Disruptor being too all-or-nothing[list][*]We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment. - We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
maybe instead of making them faster it would be better to make them much tankier without the nova so they don't get picked of as easily.
Something interesting (but no idea if it would be balanced or not) would be to give them like 200 shields and 50 health, and have them lose 20 shields for every victim. So that if they miss they can retreat quite easily but if they wreak havoc they're likely to die instantly after.
|
Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking
This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
nevermind~ found it.
|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
That's true. But the "Something else" category with 7% seems like it would make the poll biased toward longer battles. I doubt all those people posted good ideas in the thread like that option recommends, either.
That's very much a "I don't know what I want, I just don't want Blizzard!" option, kinda like a protest vote.
And even then, 54%-46% doesn't even seem like a good enough split to be the sole basis for a complete gameplay overhaul, especially when the poll concerns only Teamliquid. It's one of those votes where if you don't get an overwhelming majority (which 54% isn't), everyone will ignore the poll :D.
|
On June 22 2015 05:57 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll). That's true. But the "Something else" category with 7% seems like it would make the poll biased toward longer battles. I doubt all those people posted good ideas in the thread like that option recommends, either. That's very much a "I don't know what I want, I just don't want Blizzard!" option, kinda like a protest vote. And even then, 54%-46% doesn't even seem like a good enough split to be the sole basis for a complete gameplay overhaul, especially when the poll concerns only Teamliquid. It's one of those votes where if you don't get an overwhelming majority (which 54% isn't), everyone will ignore the poll :D.
Thats why I said withing the poll, obviously its just a small poll withing a small part of the community but still, the fact that they simply lie about it (or they don't know simple math) just to fit their view doesn't really looks good.
|
I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate criticism of the DH model?
Some people bash it, but apparently for no good reason?
|
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
|
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
Welcome to a new TeamLiquid feature - Blizzard-to-English translator:
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 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.
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Making all damage points to zero for air units- One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
- We generally don’t make extreme changes that alter so many things at once, due to the side effects these changes can cause. Changing every single air unit’s damage point is not something we’d like to explore, but we’d be open to specific air unit damage point changes if the change makes sense.
- With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
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- This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
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- We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some.
- Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
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 hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
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- We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment.
- We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
- Overall, it looks like we have a decent solve for the case of a single hit ending games often.
- We believe the next step in this area is to test out changes that would allow players to more easily save and reuse the Disruptors. This way, we can solve the issue where a miss creates a high chance of the game being over.
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. - Adept micro tips video was very cool.
- It was a very good example of relaying more info on something new, so that players in the beta can better test new units.
- It would definitely be more cool to see more tips on new units videos, because we believe faster we have the majority of beta testers ramped up with new units, the more high quality beta testing we will have going forward.
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.
|
As a communications professional I must say: finally they have realized that open and honest communication is the best way forward to solve the current mess. I certainly took them a while. Many companies are doing this already (and much more like regular vlogs, chats with the community) and Blizzard was slow to catch on. I hope they continue like this.
|
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"?
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 22 2015 19:49 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +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"?
Year 2013? Really "hot" topic.
|
On June 22 2015 20:10 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 19:49 Penev wrote: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"? Year 2013? Really "hot" topic.
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
|
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.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
These new Vental Sacs just need to require Lair.
|
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...
|
On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote:Show nested quote +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...
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.
|
On June 22 2015 19:23 sh1RoKen wrote:Welcome to a new TeamLiquid feature - Blizzard-to-English translator: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Making all damage points to zero for air units- One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
- We generally don’t make extreme changes that alter so many things at once, due to the side effects these changes can cause. Changing every single air unit’s damage point is not something we’d like to explore, but we’d be open to specific air unit damage point changes if the change makes sense.
- With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
We decided not to do that and we put it in the context of "community" even though community never even asked. Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking- This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
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. Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Community resourcing model suggestion- We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some.
- Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
No DH because we are too afraid to admit that sometimes we are incompetent and some of you bring better ideas that we do. Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Ranked play in the beta- We hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
We will implement it as previously planned. But it will look like we are changing something for the community. Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Disruptor being too all-or-nothing- We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment.
- We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
- Overall, it looks like we have a decent solve for the case of a single hit ending games often.
- We believe the next step in this area is to test out changes that would allow players to more easily save and reuse the Disruptors. This way, we can solve the issue where a miss creates a high chance of the game being over.
Our designers fucked up so bad that we can not leave things as they are. We will try to change something. Show nested quote +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. - Adept micro tips video was very cool.
- It was a very good example of relaying more info on something new, so that players in the beta can better test new units.
- It would definitely be more cool to see more tips on new units videos, because we believe faster we have the majority of beta testers ramped up with new units, the more high quality beta testing we will have going forward.
Sometimes I read TeamLiquid. Show nested quote +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.
Go cry somewhere else. If you don't like Blizzard or the way they're handling the game, don't play it.
|
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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.
|
On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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
- 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.
|
On June 23 2015 00:38 Survivor61316 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 18:35 Charoisaur wrote: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 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.
|
|
|
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.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 23 2015 00:36 ohmylanta1003 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 19:23 sh1RoKen wrote:Welcome to a new TeamLiquid feature - Blizzard-to-English translator: 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 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. On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Making all damage points to zero for air units- One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
- We generally don’t make extreme changes that alter so many things at once, due to the side effects these changes can cause. Changing every single air unit’s damage point is not something we’d like to explore, but we’d be open to specific air unit damage point changes if the change makes sense.
- With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
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- This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
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- We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some.
- Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
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 hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
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- We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment.
- We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
- Overall, it looks like we have a decent solve for the case of a single hit ending games often.
- We believe the next step in this area is to test out changes that would allow players to more easily save and reuse the Disruptors. This way, we can solve the issue where a miss creates a high chance of the game being over.
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. - Adept micro tips video was very cool.
- It was a very good example of relaying more info on something new, so that players in the beta can better test new units.
- It would definitely be more cool to see more tips on new units videos, because we believe faster we have the majority of beta testers ramped up with new units, the more high quality beta testing we will have going forward.
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. 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.
|
On June 20 2015 03:24 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Community resourcing model suggestion - [...] We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
- Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
Wait what? It is doing a good job right now? I didn't get that impression thus far. And I'm not sure whether the majority of the players are happy with the "gun to your head"-model...
I am impressed enough to buy Lotv.
|
On June 23 2015 01:38 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why should speed be a requirement? If someone wants to drop with slow as balls overlords, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.
|
Oh, thank you for the link sir, I just briefly skimmed it and will have to post over there. I will have to read more.
|
On June 23 2015 02:20 ohmylanta1003 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 01:38 JCoto wrote: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. Why should speed be a requirement? If someone wants to drop with slow as balls overlords, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.
Depends entirely on what direction they want to take I think. If they are straight up looking to allow Zerg the ability to put meaningful pressure on a FFE or 3CC then yes, I think the risk/reward factor of being able to pressure with only zerglings and roaches by using uber slow transports should equate to balance, may also result in Zerg being able to do something besides hatch first which would be nice.
If they want to push it back they could always just make it so you can morph Overseer, and then another 25 or 50 gas to allow it to carry cargo, maybe with a Hive tech upgrade to allow 2 additional slots. At least then the Zerg "dropship" would have a fast base movement speed and be a detector, which isn't as nice as a portable pylon or something that heals units is WAY better then having zero viable drop play options where the other two races have ridiculously powerful drop based options.
Sorry for the rant, just very stoked the balance team is actually doing something a bit more bold (not just adjusting cost or a base stat more of a design change) to try to push the game in a better direction, we need them to do this with Warp Gate and Terran late game units and LOTV would be golden in my eyes.
"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."
I readily disagree with this, overlord drop is beyond risky to invest into at Lair tech both tech wise and economically and it is painfully obvious to scout. Nydus cheeses/2 base all ins are way stronger unless your referring to sub Platinum league level ZvZ and ZvP.
Yea I'm sure there are videos of pro or GM Zergs pulling off drop all ins but honestly what can't those guys execute well on ladder?
|
On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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.
I think people are really overreacting to this.
Have you actually played LOTV and tried this?
Four player maps also make the ability irrelevant.
Extremely early drops are a big investment at 25 gas a pop, (four ovis is lair or upgrade) also the amount of units you have to crank out cuts into the your early game worker supply. What happens if i make a 4 ovi drop and you hold fine, then make 1 viking polt style. These ovis aren't running away, I lose 500/100 min and gas plus the units inside. I practically need to kill your a base to make that worth it. Also, these are slow ovi's, they will only really be useful at short distance drops which will come to predictable points in each base, otherwise it takes forever.
Not to mention the fact that zerg will basically be sacrificing their scouting (HUGE DEAL) to make a drop happen. Any worthwhile drop before ovi speed will require the initial ovi's.
For example, Im dropping 2 ovi's of slings in a protoss base (I did this), you are forced to rally your ovi's to the same side if you want the drop to hit together. The lings ran around, killed a zealot or a couple probes and then died. Ovi's made it back out and I did get a scout with the lings, but I don't think it justified the investment. Maybe it was equal or I was down a bit, I will try to post a replay if I can get a non-zvz match lol. I think this is maybe viable in zvp, but zvt I have many doubts, just for the fact hellions are out so fast. Maybe a roach drop is possible, as a zerg I love the variety, something that HOTS had 0% of for zerg. Marines can even just walk around and kill the second ovi before it gets to the drop point. Make 1 viking, Idk... The game vs protoss he held just fine and I went on to lose. That was me hatch expanding into gas then pool and rushing speed with drops. Maybe if I had 3 ovi with sling that is the magic number, but I doubt it.
The point is if you wait for lair or speed, you've missed a useful window. If people start dropping burrow roach with tunneling claw fast enough and it breaks the game, then I will say I'm wrong, but I doubt that will happen.
The ability is fine, and makes for some potential interesting openingss for zerg (which god knows they needed) aside only droning.
|
On June 23 2015 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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. I think people are really overreacting to this. Have you actually played LOTV and tried this? Four player maps also make the ability irrelevant. Extremely early drops are a big investment at 25 gas a pop, (four ovis is lair or upgrade) also the amount of units you have to crank out cuts into the your early game worker supply. What happens if i make a 4 ovi drop and you hold fine, then make 1 viking polt style. These ovis aren't running away, I lose 500/100 min and gas plus the units inside. I practically need to kill your a base to make that worth it. Also, these are slow ovi's, they will only really be useful at short distance drops which will come to predictable points in each base, otherwise it takes forever. Not to mention the fact that zerg will basically be sacrificing their scouting (HUGE DEAL) to make a drop happen. Any worthwhile drop before ovi speed will require the initial ovi's. For example, Im dropping 2 ovi's of slings in a protoss base (I did this), you are forced to rally your ovi's to the same side if you want the drop to hit together. The lings ran around, killed a zealot or a couple probes and then died. Ovi's made it back out and I did get a scout with the lings, but I don't think it justified the investment. Maybe it was equal or I was down a bit, I will try to post a replay if I can get a non-zvz match lol. I think this is maybe viable in zvp, but zvt I have many doubts, just for the fact hellions are out so fast. Maybe a roach drop is possible, as a zerg I love the variety, something that HOTS had 0% of for zerg. Marines can even just walk around and kill the second ovi before it gets to the drop point. Make 1 viking, Idk... The game vs protoss he held just fine and I went on to lose. That was me hatch expanding into gas then pool and rushing speed with drops. Maybe if I had 3 ovi with sling that is the magic number, but I doubt it. The point is if you wait for lair or speed, you've missed a useful window. If people start dropping burrow roach with tunneling claw fast enough and it breaks the game, then I will say I'm wrong, but I doubt that will happen. The ability is fine, and makes for some potential interesting openingss for zerg (which god knows they needed) aside only droning.
Right? Shouldn't Zerg's be able to open somewhat aggressively at least sometimes? Or should we just have to hatch first for another 3 years.
Havent even tried the drop thing on any bigger maps, it's auto impossible to make work.
|
On June 23 2015 05:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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. I think people are really overreacting to this. Have you actually played LOTV and tried this? Four player maps also make the ability irrelevant. Extremely early drops are a big investment at 25 gas a pop, (four ovis is lair or upgrade) also the amount of units you have to crank out cuts into the your early game worker supply. What happens if i make a 4 ovi drop and you hold fine, then make 1 viking polt style. These ovis aren't running away, I lose 500/100 min and gas plus the units inside. I practically need to kill your a base to make that worth it. Also, these are slow ovi's, they will only really be useful at short distance drops which will come to predictable points in each base, otherwise it takes forever. Not to mention the fact that zerg will basically be sacrificing their scouting (HUGE DEAL) to make a drop happen. Any worthwhile drop before ovi speed will require the initial ovi's. For example, Im dropping 2 ovi's of slings in a protoss base (I did this), you are forced to rally your ovi's to the same side if you want the drop to hit together. The lings ran around, killed a zealot or a couple probes and then died. Ovi's made it back out and I did get a scout with the lings, but I don't think it justified the investment. Maybe it was equal or I was down a bit, I will try to post a replay if I can get a non-zvz match lol. I think this is maybe viable in zvp, but zvt I have many doubts, just for the fact hellions are out so fast. Maybe a roach drop is possible, as a zerg I love the variety, something that HOTS had 0% of for zerg. Marines can even just walk around and kill the second ovi before it gets to the drop point. Make 1 viking, Idk... The game vs protoss he held just fine and I went on to lose. That was me hatch expanding into gas then pool and rushing speed with drops. Maybe if I had 3 ovi with sling that is the magic number, but I doubt it. The point is if you wait for lair or speed, you've missed a useful window. If people start dropping burrow roach with tunneling claw fast enough and it breaks the game, then I will say I'm wrong, but I doubt that will happen. The ability is fine, and makes for some potential interesting openingss for zerg (which god knows they needed) aside only droning. Right? Shouldn't Zerg's be able to open somewhat aggressively at least sometimes? Or should we just have to hatch first for another 3 years. Havent even tried the drop thing on any bigger maps, it's auto impossible to make work.
On four player maps where you have to split your ovi scout it's impossible unless you want to guess, or I suppose send out a drone scout at the same time. That could work. Maybe a one base, slightly late expo into slow bane drop could get some lazy toss lol 
|
if you park your overlord so his center is over the cliff can't you just elevator in your whole army?
I don't think you need speed, you could just it as a pseudo Nydus 
|
Well, if Blizzard is reading, here's a few points I really hope someone can see and pass on:
1. The point is always communication, even more so than the actual changes you have made!
This is really important, both for the decision to change something or not to change something. When community makes a vocal suggestion on something, as you said, it does not necessarily mean that suggestion is good. However, it does mean that people have strong concern on this front and want to have discussions. If your internal test showed that the community's suggestion is bad, present your test result in a detailed, readable manner. People will appreciate.
Furthermore, more detailed response can make beta testing more efficient. When a change is made initially, one might not want to say much in order not to cause biased testing; but at some point, if the internal conclusion is not to care about a certain kind of feedback (deemed common but wrong), it is better to let the players know. What is even better is to convince players such is the case so they can better spend their energy elsewhere.
2. Speak in terms of not only results, but also principles:
Sometimes I feel Blizzard treats community suggestions in a very unfair way. Speaking of their own proposal, they can start from design intentions (this is interesting!) and if it doesn't work as intended or cause problems, tune the numbers later. See how ravagers and disruptors change. On community suggestions, they just pull out some simple numbers from current testing (if not just say something from their arbitrary impression) and say, no, it does not work, and move on.
I don't know if people remember, but what did Dayvie say in this initial response to community's resource model? And then you look at this current article. Isn't he stating the exact opposite, except reaching the same conclusion not to use it? This only shows that he did not really put in an effort to think about the intention and motivation of community's model, much less improve it if it's not working as intended with its current parameters. Instead, what I feel is he just tried to reject it by pulling out whatever numbers he can.
Really, whether accepting the model or not is not the question. The question is the reasoning. It is not as simple as judging by how similar it currently feels to HotS. It is whether you think 3-base cap is a problem, and whether you think there is a distinction between reward and punishment on how you incentivize more expansions, and do these things affect game play.
|
On June 23 2015 05:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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. I think people are really overreacting to this. Have you actually played LOTV and tried this? Four player maps also make the ability irrelevant. Extremely early drops are a big investment at 25 gas a pop, (four ovis is lair or upgrade) also the amount of units you have to crank out cuts into the your early game worker supply. What happens if i make a 4 ovi drop and you hold fine, then make 1 viking polt style. These ovis aren't running away, I lose 500/100 min and gas plus the units inside. I practically need to kill your a base to make that worth it. Also, these are slow ovi's, they will only really be useful at short distance drops which will come to predictable points in each base, otherwise it takes forever. Not to mention the fact that zerg will basically be sacrificing their scouting (HUGE DEAL) to make a drop happen. Any worthwhile drop before ovi speed will require the initial ovi's. For example, Im dropping 2 ovi's of slings in a protoss base (I did this), you are forced to rally your ovi's to the same side if you want the drop to hit together. The lings ran around, killed a zealot or a couple probes and then died. Ovi's made it back out and I did get a scout with the lings, but I don't think it justified the investment. Maybe it was equal or I was down a bit, I will try to post a replay if I can get a non-zvz match lol. I think this is maybe viable in zvp, but zvt I have many doubts, just for the fact hellions are out so fast. Maybe a roach drop is possible, as a zerg I love the variety, something that HOTS had 0% of for zerg. Marines can even just walk around and kill the second ovi before it gets to the drop point. Make 1 viking, Idk... The game vs protoss he held just fine and I went on to lose. That was me hatch expanding into gas then pool and rushing speed with drops. Maybe if I had 3 ovi with sling that is the magic number, but I doubt it. The point is if you wait for lair or speed, you've missed a useful window. If people start dropping burrow roach with tunneling claw fast enough and it breaks the game, then I will say I'm wrong, but I doubt that will happen. The ability is fine, and makes for some potential interesting openingss for zerg (which god knows they needed) aside only droning. Right? Shouldn't Zerg's be able to open somewhat aggressively at least sometimes? Or should we just have to hatch first for another 3 years. Havent even tried the drop thing on any bigger maps, it's auto impossible to make work.
You guys make it sound like 25/25 is a huge investment
Consider this: the sling all in with ovie speed hits between 4-4:30.
theres not much tool available to combat it:delay your expansion? You start to starve on mineral 5 minutes in. The drop would expose your production structures anyway if your choice of defence is a wall off and bunker in mineral line.
Protoss, you either need PO on 1 base to stall long enough and hope zerg doesnt wittle down on the wall on main and attack nexus instead or get baited po on 2nd and get dropped on main. Had troubles with forcefield? Wont have problem here
Zerg works in open space and wall is a tool to dent that early game until other race have enough in critical number of unit to combat and stand even. Hatch tech ovie drop gets rid of it all
|
On June 24 2015 01:40 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 05:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 23 2015 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 23 2015 00:09 Survivor61316 wrote:On June 22 2015 21:46 inken wrote: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... 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. I think people are really overreacting to this. Have you actually played LOTV and tried this? Four player maps also make the ability irrelevant. Extremely early drops are a big investment at 25 gas a pop, (four ovis is lair or upgrade) also the amount of units you have to crank out cuts into the your early game worker supply. What happens if i make a 4 ovi drop and you hold fine, then make 1 viking polt style. These ovis aren't running away, I lose 500/100 min and gas plus the units inside. I practically need to kill your a base to make that worth it. Also, these are slow ovi's, they will only really be useful at short distance drops which will come to predictable points in each base, otherwise it takes forever. Not to mention the fact that zerg will basically be sacrificing their scouting (HUGE DEAL) to make a drop happen. Any worthwhile drop before ovi speed will require the initial ovi's. For example, Im dropping 2 ovi's of slings in a protoss base (I did this), you are forced to rally your ovi's to the same side if you want the drop to hit together. The lings ran around, killed a zealot or a couple probes and then died. Ovi's made it back out and I did get a scout with the lings, but I don't think it justified the investment. Maybe it was equal or I was down a bit, I will try to post a replay if I can get a non-zvz match lol. I think this is maybe viable in zvp, but zvt I have many doubts, just for the fact hellions are out so fast. Maybe a roach drop is possible, as a zerg I love the variety, something that HOTS had 0% of for zerg. Marines can even just walk around and kill the second ovi before it gets to the drop point. Make 1 viking, Idk... The game vs protoss he held just fine and I went on to lose. That was me hatch expanding into gas then pool and rushing speed with drops. Maybe if I had 3 ovi with sling that is the magic number, but I doubt it. The point is if you wait for lair or speed, you've missed a useful window. If people start dropping burrow roach with tunneling claw fast enough and it breaks the game, then I will say I'm wrong, but I doubt that will happen. The ability is fine, and makes for some potential interesting openingss for zerg (which god knows they needed) aside only droning. Right? Shouldn't Zerg's be able to open somewhat aggressively at least sometimes? Or should we just have to hatch first for another 3 years. Havent even tried the drop thing on any bigger maps, it's auto impossible to make work. You guys make it sound like 25/25 is a huge investment Consider this: the sling all in with ovie speed hits between 4-4:30. theres not much tool available to combat it:delay your expansion? You start to starve on mineral 5 minutes in. The drop would expose your production structures anyway if your choice of defence is a wall off and bunker in mineral line. Protoss, you either need PO on 1 base to stall long enough and hope zerg doesnt wittle down on the wall on main and attack nexus instead or get baited po on 2nd and get dropped on main. Had troubles with forcefield? Wont have problem here Zerg works in open space and wall is a tool to dent that early game until other race have enough in critical number of unit to combat and stand even. Hatch tech ovie drop gets rid of it all
Lol. Theorycrafting so hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
