EPTI miss those WoL days when the King using Ghost vs Zerg
TLO's thoughts: The LotV ultralisk - Page 7
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
imVNC
6 Posts
I miss those WoL days when the King using Ghost vs Zerg | ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
FLABBERGASTING REALLY | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46256 Posts
As far as the ultralisk goes, I agree with most other people that making it a 2/3 ultralisk isn't the best option... but I'm really happy to hear feedback from pros who know what the hell they're talking about  | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
On June 25 2015 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I really like TLO's suggestion about adding a new Terran ghost ability that disables detectors, to try and coax more nuke play. This would be exploited too much, mainly in 2v2, its gotta work for all aspects of the game. Imagine disabling detectors and sending in DT's. I would love to see more nukes as well though :D | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
On June 24 2015 13:14 Lexender wrote: BW too. Seriously I know a lot of people think a smaller ultra doesn't "feels right" but ultras where smaller in BW and they where amazing there, SC2 ultra was made big and bulky, and also shit. I it feels even more silly that pretty much everything can kite ultra, I'm sure many users here have know about the "ultras into losing" strat, everytime a player makes ultras they lose (this is of course a joke, but shows the perception players have toward the unit). Not only smaller,faster, lower damage point ultras are more fun to use, more microable, and better from a design perspective, I think they fit the zerg-y feel zerg units should have. Also seeing ling/ultra do massive surrounds in BW was pretty amazing, it would be something cool to have, instead of these clunky units that are simply kitted for miles before dying. Hit the nail on the head, Looking at zerg as a race, they are always about numbers, and having a bit smaller/cheaper ultra just seems right. Not to mention one that doesnt derp.... Too much to ask? | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 25 2015 00:37 Neutrino_ wrote: @opisska I don't know about the other changes you mentioned but I don't recall massed players clamouring for the Immortal to be nerfed. My impression is that the godawful change to the Immortal shield was dreamed up by Blizzard all by themselves (and I suspect some of the others were too). Regarding your views on the Ultra I agree with the sentiment of your post, but when you say Ultras die in a split second to bio just how many Ultras and bio are you talking about? If you are talking about 1 Ultra unsupported vs 10 or more marines/marauders then I think it dying pretty quickly is not unreasonable and should be the expected outcome. With the immortal, I was not talking about the LoTV change, but about the fact that it never really lived up to the original concept - even Blizzard admitted it in patch notes (very long time ago, in WoL), something along the lines that "we noticed players use it more for the burst damagae than then shield" - and instead of trying to change that, they buffed the range, turning it completely to a damage dealer (when instead they imho should have kept the range low to force it to be in the front lines taking fire and buff the shield, the indetitiy of the unit). | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 329278
123 Posts
Composition however, shouldn't be all or nothing based on a single ability tailored towards a single unit. There's not any smart decisions to be made, it's just getting a ghost in time or not. It's incredibly frustrating and anti-fun having to deal with an almost indestructible unit because you missed your window. ok then let's also adress: dt (got detection in place?), oracle (got spore/turret?), banshee (got aa/detection?), flyingsiegetank (are you perfectly prepared and make not a single micro mistake?) because these are all - as good as - indestructible and can kill you early game just because you missed your window. so now that there's one thing that terrans really have to look out for (they have scans btw and ultralisk cave is lategame, plus building time) even a pro zerg thinks this is too harsh on our poor terrans. that is sweet. | ||
|
EndOfLineTv
United States741 Posts
| ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On June 25 2015 17:20 opisska wrote: With the immortal, I was not talking about the LoTV change, but about the fact that it never really lived up to the original concept - even Blizzard admitted it in patch notes (very long time ago, in WoL), something along the lines that "we noticed players use it more for the burst damagae than then shield" - and instead of trying to change that, they buffed the range, turning it completely to a damage dealer (when instead they imho should have kept the range low to force it to be in the front lines taking fire and buff the shield, the indetitiy of the unit). I don't think range is as defining as you think, since Immortals are based on a dragoon, which was a mid-ranged unit. Having more range reduces casualities even more, since it means less exposition. Even with 7 range makes Immortals harder to access, so less mortality rates in that aspect. I think that the problem is that they made the Immortal not immortal at all, just very resistant against tanks because of how the passive, but the unit needed an insane burst damage to feel useful. They adjusted to a lore that said that they gave Immortals a shield to resist big impacts. An "inmmortal" should be a unit that: 1- Is not that easy to catch (decent mobility and range) 2- When caught, is not that easy to burst it down. Either via passive abilities (as a constant) or active (less constant) 3 - It has inmense survival between fights (easy retreat, can go out and in) 4 - Regenerates fast. 5 - Tanks more damage than it deals, and scale very well with shield upgrades. 6 - Forces the opponent to attack indirectly or by absolute bruteforce (swarming, harrasing or stomping heavily with endgame units) 7 - Can be present in moderate numbers (7-10, like archons) setting up a hit squad that it is able to relevate themselves at tanking and regenerating out of the fight, taking good advantage of micro (like the original idea for Roach Burrow regen). IMAO the immortal should be a bit more countering towards mid-game units and stronger vs earlygame units, but not so hardcountering to some units like Tanks and Ultralisks, which has cut that units out of the meta vP. Immortal design fails: - Immortals fail at mobility, there is hardly any retreat maneuvers you can pull off them; - Hardened Shields are very strong vs tanks and lategame units (blocks a big % of the damage and that units attack very slow) but much less effective vs minor units (only 10 hits), and since there is no big range advantage (6) other units with 5-6 range have an easy time picking them. - Shields regenerate slow (also new active) - It can't do much if focused. - As the unit doesn't work as intended, it is given big damage to mitigate the ineffectiveness of it. They should try new things. So far barrier doesn't work very well, and some of the core problems of the Immortal persist. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
blizzard, please! | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
I don't think range is as defining as you think, since Immortals are based on a dragoon, which was a mid-ranged unit. Having more range reduces casualities even more, since it means less exposition. Even with 7 range makes Immortals harder to access, so less mortality rates in that aspect. A little side comment, but I think the Immortal could benefit from both higher range and mobility. 7 range for instance would make it more rewarded for focus firing specific enemy targets during engagements. As a general, it makes more sense for more expensive "high burst based units" to have slightly more range than massable cheap units (where FFing isn't really practical anyway). | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3531 Posts
| ||
|
Elendur
Canada43 Posts
Thank you TLO ! | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On June 25 2015 23:42 ejozl wrote: Immortal with mobility&range? We don't call DT's immortal, because we cannot catch it, I'm pretty sure the purpose is that you keep hitting this guy and he simply won't die. Would love to see a lower range version of this unit. Name is irrelevant here. The goal should be to create a fun microable unit that fits well into the protoss composition. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On June 25 2015 23:42 ejozl wrote: Immortal with mobility&range? We don't call DT's immortal, because we cannot catch it, I'm pretty sure the purpose is that you keep hitting this guy and he simply won't die. Would love to see a lower range version of this unit. DTs cannot be called immortals since they are very, very squisy, and any army with detection will just shit on them with minimal effort. If DT's had 8 range (lower exposition), 400HP/400 shields and 3.5 speed for example, they would seem immortal, because it would be damn hard to focus them correctly, since 8 units can place themselves in a comfort zone behind the fire line of most units (5-6) and even when focused, 800HP per unit and big speed just would allow them to run, recharge shields, and go. Imagine also Siege Tanks with blink, even with 10 damage only. Would you touch them? Immortality is about having traits that keep you safe and prevent death (escape, regenereration, zoning, low exposition, tanking). So far, the Immortal only has 1, which is tanking, balanced with big DPS to be somewhat useful. Immortals are supposed to be relatively weak vs meele and minor units, and stand heavy fire. However, Immortals seem only Immortals vs SiegeTanks and Archons in 1v1. In other cases, they seem more Destroyers/Busters than Immortals. Immortals are practically shit vs another thing that is not Stalkers, pure Roach or SiegeTanks/ Ultralisks (the units they counter more because the high damage mitigation proportionally) A 5/4 range inmortal is very unviable, mainly because of the low speed, but also because of the high exposition. 5-6 range units in SC2 have very good DPS density, so being in range disadvantage implies that even before firing you can take a lot of damage. Just look at how the Ultralisk has been buffed continously. Consider that range also balances the exposition of the unit, and that is part of how Immortal it feels. If you decrease the range on Immortals and give them better tanking ( 200/300 stats for example) then it becomes a glorified almost-meele unit.Also, it doesn't make any sense to have a semimeele unit that deals heavy damage on low range and tanks damage: That's what Archons are for to some extent, but you need shield upgrades for it. Archons don't take bonus damage from any source and that is stronger than it seems, for sure. If you give better passive and damage at low range, then you have a similar unit like the one you have now, very similar to the case before: almost semimeele. It makes very little sense game-play wise, and even more lore-wise, considering that Immortals are GtG specialized Dragoons. I have a unit with two megacannons on top of it, derivated from a dragoon and it's... almost meele¿? WTF? I don't know if you know about the Immortal design, but originally, they were 5 range because there was a range upgrade up to 7 range. They were renewed dragoons. The passive went trhoug various designs with the same concept, and the damage kept rising to justify the increasing cost and tech level of the Immortal, which was too strong to be at Gateway. I think the Immortal would take advantage of a design that prefered microability and diminished exposition+ good tanking instead of busting damage. Right now, there is little difference between the roles of the Immortal and the VoidRay. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3531 Posts
there was a range upgrade up to 7 range. Did not know of this, interesting, then it makes more sense that they buffed their range at some point. Still would not mind seeing a beefier close-quarter Immortal, kind of like a shotgun, but it does make my point of possible intended design moot. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On June 26 2015 00:11 Hider wrote: Name is irrelevant here. The goal should be to create a fun microable unit that fits well into the protoss composition. Yeah, I gotta echo this. I love the lore as much as the next guy, but retooling the Immortal to be more "immortal" (when it already is plenty that for its cost) is just nonsensical. What's next, Reapers don't reap enough? | ||
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
| ||
| ||
