Thank you for your constructive discussions this week. It’s been good seeing the more helpful threads and conversations develop over these last few days.
Chat Improvements
We’re just finishing up our most recent pass of chat improvements, and are currently planning on releasing them with the next patch. Below are the changes we have planned:
• Re-addition of Member Lists • List of Active Chat Channels (with filtering) • Option for Increased Chat Window Height • Increased Contrast for Text vs Channel/Player Name • Pin Chat-window to Stay Active (Not Yet Implemented)
We’re continuing to work on the layout of the UI to ensure that chat doesn’t interfere with client functionality so that we can eliminate the requirement for window management. We’re also working on a details post on these topics, so please look forward to that coming soon.
Ghost Ability
Thank you for your feedback in this area. We realized that we completely agree with the fact that the new armor-debuff drone ability isn’t suitable for the fantasy of what the Ghost should be doing, and it’s more of a Raven type of ability. Additionally, we’d like to give a shout-out to the really well explained “Line Damage Snipe” suggestion from our community. It was very easy to understand and the screenshots attached were very straight forward as well. We made an ability like this previously in our internal testing and learned much about skillshots in StarCraft II. We realized that we don’t want splash damage units on the barracks as we’ve found it to be much more interesting when bio units are supported by such damage-dealers from the Factory or the Starport.
However, after testing out various “snipe” related Ghost abilities such as yours, we’re currently at the following version of Snipe:
• Much higher single-target damage. Requires a 5 second channel before the shot fires, channel can be interrupted by damaging the Ghost.
The idea behind this version is that it fits the theme of the Ghost better: proper utilization of Cloak and excellent positioning where the Ghost is protected by other units will be critical to using the ability well. With that said, we’re not finalized on this ability yet, we just wanted to share the current state of our exploration into this unit to hear your thoughts.
Skillshots in StarCraft II
A topic we wanted to bring up is skillshots in StarCraft II. We’ve found that there are issues with clearly determining what’s going to happen when a skillshot is commanded while multiple casters are selected. There are two ways this plays out:
1. Closest caster to the target point casts the ability. Because direction matters with skillshots, the closest available unit isn’t always what you want, and the only way to choose a different unit is to individually select it, which feels clunky. Also, if the closest available unit isn’t on screen, it can be confusing (you see a ghost on your screen, you pressed the ability, but no targeting indicator appears).
2. All available units cast at the same time. This gives an accurate prediction of what will happen and lacks the confusion of which unit will perform the action (since all of them will). The gameplay, however, didn’t feel very strategic. With such a large spread of simultaneous attack angles, it felt more like a wide area AoE, and for the defending player the counter micro was to just retreat.
To provide some more information, we had tried skillshot abilities on the Mothership Core and Oracle since air pathing is simpler and you don’t usually make many of these units. The skillshots didn’t feel confusing, but the specific abilities we tried out did not fit into the game well. Seeing as our end goal is to make the gameplay fun and exciting, rather than to force abilitiy-types into the game, we opted to remove these skillshots. We’re open to trying this out where it might fit, but so far these abilities have not been a good fit for StarCraft II.
Overlord Individual Transport Upgrade
We definitely hear your thoughts in this area. The timing of it may be a bit too early right now, especially when the opposing player is teching up. It’ll be easier to find a higher tech place for it, such as making the upgrade have a Lair requirement. However, because it is something new, we’d like to test this a bit longer before committing to a nerf like that. Thanks for the testing and feedback in this area. We’re seeing a lot of tier 1 Overlord drop strategies in the beta as well and will continue to monitor this upgrade.
Minimap Icons added for Destructible Rocks and Towers
Because we’re rotating through ladder maps very quickly now, we really want to polish the minimap to display all of the critical info. Currently, we have icons for important pieces except the destructible rocks and towers. We’d like to try out a change for this in the next beta patch.
Map Diversity
We wanted to provide our thoughts in this area once more due to various discussions happening regarding this topic both for and against it. We strongly believe that map diversity is important for the longevity of StarCraft II. We believe there are three main perspectives to view the concept of map diversity from:
Regular players playing on Battle.Net
We believe each season feeling fresh, with new strategies and options to explore, keeps the game feeling dynamic and more interesting.
eSports and stream viewers
We have observed a trend from the past few years of StarCraft II: when new maps play too similarly to a previous season’s maps, it is not an ideal viewing experience.
One of the highlighting components of watching professional StarCraft II matches is being exposed to new strategies. We’d love to push map diversity for this reason.
Pro Players
We know that increased map diversity is not as easy for pro players. The very concept requires them to explore, discover, and practice new strategies that appear due to the diversity of map structures.
When it comes to choosing what is fun for viewers versus fun for pro-players, we believe pro-players having it a bit more rough is more beneficial than having a less entertaining experience watching competitive StarCraft II.
Admittedly, there is a downside to trying to push for new, interesting, and different types as there is a higher potential for slight match-up imbalances. We’d really like to encourage players not to overreact to a strategy that initially looks overpowered on a certain map. Rather, we would encourage players to explore ways to overcome these strategies throughout the game. We believe that even the very best players in the world can’t immediately account for every viable strategy on a given map, and that keeping an open mindset will be very important when pushing for more map diversity. However, it should go without saying that if a map does turn out to have irreconcilable problems, we will take measures to address those concerns – even if this means removing a map from the pool mid-season – as we have done in the past.
Terran Mech
We hear your feedback in this area, and definitely agree that mech usage has greatly declined since the Cyclone nerfs and mech upgrades being split off. We are exploring ways to scale back these nerfs to get a better ratio of bio play versus mech play in the beta. Current options that we’re considering are:
• Combining mech armor upgrades, but leaving the weapon upgrades split. • Higher damage on Cyclones accompanied by rolling the range upgrade into the unit. • A change to lock-on functionality that causes the ability to break if the Cyclone loses vision.
Ravager Balance Suggestion
We saw a great tweak suggestion from many of you this week regarding the Ravager’s weapon range being increased to 6. We agree that Ravagers can be bumped up a bit more, and also agree that it makes sense that Ravagers generally should stay behind Roaches. We’ll be testing this out internally this week to see if it’s a good change to try in the beta. Thank you for your great discussions in this area.
Liberator
We agree with you that the Liberator in low numbers against equal cost of enemy air units isn’t very strong, and that their anti-ground positioning play is very interesting. We also agree that this unit could use some help. Our current stance on the Liberator is to leave the AA in its current form (strong versus a player who is massing air units) while strengthening it’s anti-ground role.
The problem with cyclones is that you die to anyone who goes 2-base tier-2 air (muta, banshee, oracle). All the gas and resources poured into early cyclones opportunity-costs away your AA potential against 2-base tier-2 air. Buffing cyclone ground damage and range won't change that you auto-lose to muta builds if you go 2-base cyclone.
My suggestion: keep the range/damage nerfs. Give back the early AA. Change the late game upgrade to a range upgrade.
Wow. I don't agree with everything they say, but this back-and-forth dialogue is utterly fantastic.
Ravager buff + more differentiation from the Roach is always good.
Hard to say how the Ghost ability will pan out without seeing some numbers. 5 second channel sounds super long, but if it does enough damage and has high enough range, maybe it could work.
I'm surprised that the Cyclone's anti-air capabilities haven't come up yet, I've seen a lot of discussion on that topic.
I wish they didn't feel the need to be so cordial and formally polite in their responses, a more casual tone would work just as well for me, this one reminds me too much that they felt pressured into doing this dialogue instead of doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts. Ah well, beggars can't be choosers.
reading his thoughts about mech makes me think he wants mech to be revolving around cyclones. This is not what we want, the cyclone is a very boring unit with little micro opportunities. WE WANT MECH TO REVOLVE AROUND TANKS. that is what makes mech unique, the intense positional play with tanks. especially with the economy changes tank based mech has the potential to make for awesome games with the tanks being more spread out but stronger in low numbers.
edit: the snipe change also looks like a pure anti-ultra ability. Please no more hardcounterfocused play in sc2.
On July 03 2015 02:56 y0su wrote: I'm liking the constant updates
me 2
A few things: I kind of agree on the line-skillshots and the general idea not to implement them. I do like the ghost suggestion, I made a similar one in 2011 or 2012 I think. Interruptable snipe sounds both interesting as well as fitting on the ghost lore. But I personally would like it to feel less spammy, like being balanced around a higher energy cost than 25. Especially if the spell is interruptable, I feel like 25energy won't really make for interesting interrupt micro, but just cause players to try and get the shot of and if it fizzles it is a bit of a "whatever" situation. The ~5iss second CD might be too much anyways but obviously needs testing.
Drops are too strong that early, fully agree. Sadly, as much as I like to defend Protoss aggression with baneling drops and counterattack or just attack and harass early. It's just the sad balance-state of early PvZ which revolves around boring out the game with walls/canons/MsC/forcefield that would need some more drastic changes that makes this impossible.
Ravagers, I wish they would try to work with the corrosive bile more. It has not been touched at all so far and I don't think it is really in the best spot right now. At least I think more testing with varying values (for delay, damage, splash, cooldown etc) would be helpful to determine whether the ability can be improved upon. For example I think that the shot would be much more useful if the splash was a tiny bit bigger, but the outer radius splash was tiny (like tanks or grenades).
On July 03 2015 03:07 Charoisaur wrote: reading his thoughts about mech makes me think he wants mech to be revolving around cyclones. This is not what we want, the cyclone is a very boring unit with little micro opportunities.
I get your hard-on for tanks, I have one too, but I've seen this comment before and it confuses the crap out of me. How in the world does the Cyclone offer "little micro opportunities"? The unit is nothing BUT micro, you have to babysit it every second of combat (except maybe in lategame engagements? I haven't seen any of those).
I want mech to revolve about positioning with harass potential througout the game. Its not just the tank that needs to work, its atleast the tank + one more unit. Havnet watched the cyclone in the lotv yet, but when i tried it out in the lotv custom map it wasnt fun to play with.
The interactions were pretty lame overall. Iam quite sad to see them combine the attack upgrades tbh.
When people say Mech they do not mean All mechanical units for terran, they mean the factory units. Starport units=air units.
Its like when they try to combine the attack upgrade it makes me feel as if they dont want to really try to make mech awesome + available
On July 03 2015 03:11 Foxxan wrote: I want mech to revolve about positioning with harass potential througout the game. Its not just the tank that needs to work, its atleast the tank + one more unit.
Couldn't agree more.
When people say Mech they do not mean All mechanical units for terran, they mean the factory units. Starport units=air units.
Disagree. I think the Banshee could make for a terrific Vulture substitute.
We agree with you that the Liberator in low numbers against equal cost of enemy air units isn’t very strong, and that their anti-ground positioning play is very interesting. We also agree that this unit could use some help. Our current stance on the Liberator is to leave the AA in its current form (strong versus a player who is massing air units) while strengthening it’s anti-ground role.
pls tell me David Kim, what the hell was going on in your brain when you thought adding another 15 range siege unit in the game after the tempest disaster would be a good idea?
On July 03 2015 03:21 DinoMight wrote: Speaking of which I want to see more nukes.
Can we do something about Nukes? Why aren't they used?? I may be some Diamond scrub but when I play Terran I make hella nukes.
I think if Ghosts became useful for what they are and not just for what they counter, then people would use nukes more often. They aren't that expensive and really taxing on the multitasking even for proplayers because of the cloak. Basically a great tool to tax the playerskill moreso than the ingame resources.
But right now if you don't build ghosts or build them very scarcely you are not going to build nukes.
• Higher damage on Cyclones accompanied by rolling the range upgrade into the unit.
NO just no! If you listen to feedback, just buff the !@#$%^&* Siege Tank while toning down Siege tank dropplay.
A topic we wanted to bring up is skillshots in StarCraft II. We’ve found that there are issues with clearly determining what’s going to happen when a skillshot is commanded while multiple casters are selected. There are two ways this plays out:
1. Closest caster to the target point casts the ability. Because direction matters with skillshots, the closest available unit isn’t always what you want, and the only way to choose a different unit is to individually select it, which feels clunky. Also, if the closest available unit isn’t on screen, it can be confusing (you see a ghost on your screen, you pressed the ability, but no targeting indicator appears).
2. All available units cast at the same time. This gives an accurate prediction of what will happen and lacks the confusion of which unit will perform the action (since all of them will). The gameplay, however, didn’t feel very strategic. With such a large spread of simultaneous attack angles, it felt more like a wide area AoE, and for the defending player the counter micro was to just retreat.
This is similarly to the conclusion I drew after digging into the area. The ghost line-shot is something that sounds cool in theory but doesn't work in practice. That said I am still a huge fan of AOE-skillshots, either with a marker or a very slow projectile (and the model size of the projectile should be large so you easily can identify it). For instance I would love to see Forcefields removed and replaced with a skillshot and be balanced in a different way. Do the same thing with EMP and increase radius instead (or increase ghost energy regeneration rate so missing one skillshot isn't game-ending).
Much higher single-target damage. Requires a 5 second channel before the shot fires, channel can be interrupted by damaging the Ghost.
Sounds better, but still a bit meh'ish. Perhaps because it will be a bit "dumbed down" --> You see Ghost channel, you attack it. Doesn't really feel as if its a twoway skill-thing, but rather something that the opponent will deny if he is good and won't do if he is bad.
If this change is implemented I would also suggest that they increase the model size of the Ghost to make this type of micro a bit more practical.
BTW: Where is the PDD redesign? I guess this might be replaced with the Ghost-drone thing?
We agree with you that the Liberator in low numbers against equal cost of enemy air units isn’t very strong, and that their anti-ground positioning play is very interesting. We also agree that this unit could use some help. Our current stance on the Liberator is to leave the AA in its current form (strong versus a player who is massing air units) while strengthening it’s anti-ground role.
pls tell me David Kim, what the hell was going on in your brain when you thought adding another 15 range siege unit in the game after the tempest disaster would be a good idea?
I'm worried they want to stick with that design, which seems really awkward to me. I don't really care about balance, but the unit itself is bound to be a failure design-wise in its AG role, like the tempest is.
And yeah please don't try to make "mech" viable with cyclones. If a playstyle can't revolve around tanks and positioning, then don't bother to make it ; it will never be considered true mech.
Those criticism aside, I'm really happy to see they're willing to discuss and that their reasoning mostly seems logical.
On July 03 2015 03:06 The_Templar wrote: The ghost change looks cool, but I'm not sure about it taking five (real time!) seconds. Seems too long.
The rest looks great to me.
Well, it depends on how powerful it is, but I agree that 5 seconds is too long. If you're going to channel for that long might as well drop a nuke...
Well, for one, Nukes are pretty weak (a lot weaker than they were in BW). Anything that isn't close to the center of the explosion will survive, including most units.
Second, the Nuke is just too easy to dodge. It's always been this way.
If they increased its damage significantly, we might get to see it a little more often in very specific situations, but as it stands, it is just weak. It's utterly useless with its current damage output.
Its not just the tank that needs to work, its atleast the tank + one more unit. Havnet watched the cyclone in the lotv yet, but when i tried it out in the lotv custom map it wasnt fun to play with.
Yeh, mech definitely (besides siege tank buff) also need some type of harass tool that isn't harcountered by static defense/warp-ins/creep-spread/roaches/hydras. Similarly to Vulture Mines vs Dragoons it should be possible to kill those types of units with good micro and static defense should only be something that "wins time". Not something that prevent harass play from occuring the first place.
First post here. I like the change of attitude I'm sensing from sc2 devs so I decided to give my 2 cents.
How about swapping the hp of tanks and cyclones. To me it seems just wrong that this small thing on wheels has more durability than a lumbering siege tank on treads. Besides the tank can't run if it's caught so shouldn't break any balance.
I really like the idea of a carefully positioned ghost making a snipe that matters if it hits.
Thanks! (this is coming from very casual sc2 gamer and observer)
I think you need different UI for line skill-shots, like "drag right mouse button to indicate direction", which might be clumsy too and doesn't fit with SC2 regardless. Otherwise they only work when they're autocast like the hellion/lurker.
Factory has 6 units and yet once you nerfed the cyclones, mech becomes bad, don't you see something wrong? Like 5 units are irrelevant and 1 unit changed mech status from good to bad? And yet you even chosed the worst ability to give back to Cyclone. The range. It needs its AA back not the range. Add another attack form to distinguish the AA and AG so you can balance the Cyclone as AA. Tanks / Hellbats should handle the AG while Cyclones handle AA.
If anything needs help is the Tank. It needs high single target damage with the removal of overkill prevention. That way as a mecher, you can micro your tanks and they can be much stronger vs high HP units like Ultralisks and others.
Did you ever consider the adding the malestorm rounds from the campaign to the tanks to improve their strength without affecting the splash? This change a long with the overkill prevention removal could make Tanks much better even vs low HP armies as it will promote more micro from both sides. Instead of just make a tank line that can eradicate any MMM or Roach Hydra army that approach the tanks mass, then both will have to micro as the mobile army needs to draw out shots from tanks while the player with tanks needs to micro them.
This is way better than the medivac upgrade to fix the tanks.
How about swapping the hp of tanks and cyclones. To me it seems just wrong that this small thing on wheels has more durability than a lumbering siege tank on treads.
I agree, to me the Cyclone is more like the Goliath and should almost be a Reactorable unit, though probably not.
The Liberator also feels a lot higher tech than Vikings, I mean probably higher than Banshee's too. It just seems it should be a Tech Lab unit.
On July 03 2015 03:04 pure.Wasted wrote: Wow. I don't agree with everything they say, but this back-and-forth dialogue is utterly fantastic.
Ravager buff + more differentiation from the Roach is always good.
I'm worried about them not being differentiated enough from Hyrdalisks. I'd like to see their damage be biased towards a certain damage type, in exchange for an HP buff. Or just have their auto-attack removed.
I'm surprised that the Cyclone's anti-air capabilities haven't come up yet, I've seen a lot of discussion on that topic.
I have a bit of optimism regarding that, considering it looks like they're recognizing that it's not currently fulfilling a valuable role. I think that the next community update will acknowledge the need to focus on their AA.
That being said, i worry about the direction they are going with mech. Don't make the mistake of HOTS and the Warhound. The Cyclone should be a support/harass unit, not the core. Buff the Tank!
About the Liberator: its anti air is what gives it a cool role since it's a much better and mobile option to the Thor. The anti ground role is already filled by the Banshee and arguably the BC, so the anti ground on the Liberator should be a bonus, not a focus.
On July 03 2015 03:51 Sapphire.lux wrote: Fantastic to see such in depth communication.
That being said, i worry about the direction they are going with mech. Don't make the mistake of HOTS and the Warhound. The Cyclone should be a support/harass unit, not the core. Buff the Tank!
About the Liberator: its anti air is what gives it a cool role since it's a much better and mobile option to the Thor. The anti ground role is already filled by the Banshee and arguably the BC, so the anti ground on the Liberator should be a bonus, not a focus.
Yeah I think the Liberator should be solid reliable anti mass air and have some AG, but very weak. That siege thing is too redundant.
I want to point out a fact that there aren't a lot of pro players (especially top tier Korean pros) playing intensively enough for Blizzard to collect data for analysis. With their participation, there will be more insights of forming balanced but characteristic mechanism. The community commits extensively into the Beta testing and offers a great deal of helpful and constructive advice. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing more top tier Korean pros involved in Beta testing and speaking out loud.
I agree with some other people, the constant feedback and updates on your thought process through the beta is GREAT! Hearing the reasoning behind your choices is really helpful, please keep it up.
Regarding the overlord drops, I haven't been able to see what other people are doing as I play zerg, but I still think there is no problem with the ability (unless some invincible strategy has developed, which i doubt it has). Investment = 300-400 for ovis, 100 gas for speed, 75-100 gas to convert ovis, 5-6 larve minimum for lings 250-300 (also could have been drones)... Subject to change with roaches... The investment is like 2-3 hatcheries or tons of drones, zerg has to do a lot of damage just to justify the attempt. Also, it can be stopped, quite easy in some cases. Shit, make a couple marines and look for the 1-2 places slow overlords can actually attempt a drop in a base. protoss defense = 2 adepts and msc, terran def = 4 hellions they were going to make already.
Someone please enlighten me as to why this is op?
The early gas requirement makes the ability and investment, maybe if you increase the gas requirement and it becomes more of an investment that would balance it more? I would MUCH rather have a gas increase then a lair requirement.
If the ability comes at lair, how is it any different from the other overlord drop ability?!
The whole point of making the ability available from the start is to give zerg some other cool strategic options in the early game and it does that! It DRASTICALLY expands the options for zerg openers, at least until the other races develop answers. If lair becomes a requirement nobody will use it, I promise. It is already a very niche ability. The ability is dead on ANY 4 player or large map. Map choice alone negates it as an option... it's not over powered... My experience is that people whine constantly about something like this in the forums because they don't want to have to adapt to what is a really reasonable change in the game.
It doesn't need to change. Other races learn to deal with it... Learn to swim motherf**kers
Seriously though, this is just a little kid crying because another kid got a new toy and he didn't, period.
Ghost Ability: - I like that they are trying new stuff, the channel snipe ability is similar to nova in Heroes. I'd be happy if they took a look into other abilities from SC2 units in Heroes. - I think they could also look into the consume ability Tosh had from the campaign where you take a units health and convert it into energy. - The only issue with the channeled snipe is the cross over it has with the HSM ability on Ravens. Both kind of "Lock in" on a target. But I feel they are different enough still.
In order to make mech a strong style to play, buffing units isn't necessarily a preferable approach. In HoTS, there aren't Cyclone and Liberator on Terran production line. Still, mech can be a powerful tool in some maps, though bio is usually a more preferred style to play with. Adding new units isn't supposed to make mech outweigh bio, nor is it supposed to dominate the scene of all three Terran encounters. Those new members of Terran army should increase the diversity of strategy instead of playing dominant role in any games. Also, whether mech is more about positioning or multi-tasking, a successful mech strategic system should not centralize on one or two units. This means either tank or cyclone can be a major component of a mech army, even Thor. Frequently buffing units (especially new units) may not only lead to new balance problems, but also unnecessarily switching the attention of community and pros to focus their playing on these buff units. The latter have more diminishing effect on diversity in the long rum than overly buffing a unit.
If the ability comes at lair, how is it any different from the other overlord drop ability?!
Low cost-low investment. Only takes 12 seconds to research.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Time is a legitimate point to make, but ovi drops are so weak mid-late game it won't matter.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment. 300 plus gas investment just to be able to attempt shitty drops. That's almost all of the tier 2 upgrades, its not worth it, nobody played it before for a reason.
If you make it lair I promise it becomes like the new swarm host, nobody will use it and with good reason. Mid to late game zerg drops are shit. This actually made drop viable, and it's legitimate, not overpowered.
I again I repeat my point, it's niche and not even viable on any large or four player map. Other zergs please speak up about this, the argument against the ability doesn't have any substance.
If people want to argue against early drop for zerg, then please site an actual example with a vod or rep. Put something legitimate behind it, because I have yet to hear of some REAL reason why this should be nerfed.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Hence the difference between it and the Nydus is that if you for droom-"drops" you opt for the Nydus. For "low army count"-harass you opt for overlords.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment.
Depends if you want to get the overlord speed anyway.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment.
Strong openings that can potentially end the game if the opponent ops for the wrong build is something you needs to avoid (whenever possible)
But I think there is a middle-of-the-road apparoch: Opt for a very cheap upgrade (hatchery tech, 25/25) with relatively fast reserach time (e.g. 60 seconds) that unlocks overlord drops.
Cyclone splitting his attack may be for the better. However, his GtA should come fresh out the box and balanced with a nerf to its speed and/or range that can be recouped with an upgrade. Then you can tweak his GtA to gel with the midgame birds. Already got enough obligate GtGs: Tank, Hellbat and Marauder. Do you want Cyclone competing with those?
When it comes to choosing what is fun for viewers versus fun for pro-players, we believe pro-players having it a bit more rough is more beneficial than having a less entertaining experience watching competitive StarCraft II.
you're right dayvie. Watching bunny lose to a single mothershipcore was really fun and interesting and lead to a more entertaining watching experience :D there is nothing wrong with adding some unique features but one thing viewers hate more than anything else is games being decided by cheese and coinflips. Maps that promote those styles of play are terrible to watch AND play.
Ghost snipe sounds like an improvement but still not something I really like. Recently I was playing with the idea that EMP should slow down mechanical units too. This way you could use Ghosts in TvT when you play Bio vs Mech. On the other hand Ghosts would then become the go-to unit vs P I fear.
On the topic of overlord drops. I suggest adding an upgrade that increases overlord HP by 150 or something like that. This way overlords could be buffed to life longer in the mid to late game. Now baneling drops etc could become much more potent or you could use the upgrade defensively against viking / phoenix harass.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Hence the difference between it and the Nydus is that if you for droom-"drops" you opt for the Nydus. For "low army count"-harass you opt for overlords.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment.
Strong openings that can potentially end the game if the opponent ops for the wrong build is something you needs to avoid (whenever possible)
But I think there is a middle-of-the-road apparoch: Opt for a very cheap upgrade (hatchery tech, 25/25) with relatively fast reserach time (e.g. 60 seconds) that unlocks overlord drops.
Overlord speed upgrade + ventral sacs combined, 100/100/60s, 25/25 overlord morph seems very reasonable to me.
You prevent baneling lift trick early game, but utility of drop morph is 95% the same. You need overlord speed anyways to do cool stuff with drops, otherwise is just suiciding ovies or tactical lifting very very early game.
If the ability comes at lair, how is it any different from the other overlord drop ability?!
Low cost-low investment. Only takes 12 seconds to research.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Time is a legitimate point to make, but ovi drops are so weak mid-late game it won't matter.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment. 300 plus gas investment just to be able to attempt shitty drops. That's almost all of the tier 2 upgrades, its not worth it, nobody played it before for a reason.
If you make it lair I promise it becomes like the new swarm host, nobody will use it and with good reason. Mid to late game zerg drops are shit. This actually made drop viable, and it's legitimate, not overpowered.
I again I repeat my point, it's niche and not even viable on any large or four player map. Other zergs please speak up about this, the argument against the ability doesn't have any substance.
If people want to argue against early drop for zerg, then please site an actual example with a vod or rep. Put something legitimate behind it, because I have yet to hear of some REAL reason why this should be nerfed.
I think it is broken in particular against Protoss. I agree that it is a bit hard to judge them properly when playing against failed adept rushes every game or people trying to FFE expand in a world where those drops exists. But it probably changes the matchup too much that there would need to be real changes to early game balance that won't happen. Protoss will probably just fall behind if they have to try and anticipate for those drops.
I could give you replays or tell you my stats with drops and in particular against protoss, but that would basically come down to my second sentence.
And as much as I like playing with them, they are probably infinitely frustrating to play against. Just think what sort of gameplay early medivac drops or blink stalker rushes create.One player just becomes a sitting duck and somehow tries to defend stuff that randomly comes into his base ignoring all Terrain and kind of needs to be able to just have an overpowered army to eventually compensate because that's the only way he can eventually win when he never gets to have any mapcontrol. Those mobile harass tools create good gameplay when both players have them equally and they can counter each other somewhat (hellions vs zerglings, medivacs vs mutalisks, TvT mirrors). But Protoss is pretty much blank in that section.
On July 03 2015 03:06 The_Templar wrote: The ghost change looks cool, but I'm not sure about it taking five (real time!) seconds. Seems too long.
The rest looks great to me.
Well, it depends on how powerful it is, but I agree that 5 seconds is too long. If you're going to channel for that long might as well drop a nuke...
Well, for one, Nukes are pretty weak (a lot weaker than they were in BW). Anything that isn't close to the center of the explosion will survive, including most units.
Second, the Nuke is just too easy to dodge. It's always been this way.
If they increased its damage significantly, we might get to see it a little more often in very specific situations, but as it stands, it is just weak. It's utterly useless with its current damage output.
Nukes should be anti structures. They need a buff against structures to make it worthy risking a 200/100 unit along with 100/100 other than doing 500 damage to structures, which especially against Protoss will only remove the shield from gateways / robo / twilight / templar... etc.
Excellent!! I'm really glad they are working on the chat interface for the ui. I really hope this gets polished out before release. If lucky, I hope we get an improve clan system as well.
It's a bit late though, isn't it? We're on to discussing minor balance tweaks. Nobody cares about that, they care about design. This dialogue would have been nice before lotv went into beta.
re: tweaks
Cyclone is boring, I don't think Blizzard understands what we mean when we say we want mech play.
Liberator is uninteresting.
Ghosts aren't snipers, they're psychic/anti-psychic special ops.Terrorist/counter-terror units.
Chat improvements - why weren't these in Wings? Can't we just back up and use bnet 1.0 instead?
Map Diversity - the major problem is how coin flippy the matches are already. If you want to give us better map diversity, let us have some more reliable, affordable scouting options so we can actually respond to our opponents. PvX/TvX has been delightful over the years because of this.
I shouldn't have written anything, nobody cares ;O
I wish they would just stop trying to make mech work. Mech is boring. Bio units being supported by factory and starport units is so much more interesting. Mech is cool to see every once in a while, but if every game was mech we would be bored to tears.
When it comes to choosing what is fun for viewers versus fun for pro-players, we believe pro-players having it a bit more rough is more beneficial than having a less entertaining experience watching competitive StarCraft II.
you're right dayvie. Watching bunny lose to a single mothershipcore was really fun and interesting and lead to a more entertaining watching experience :D there is nothing wrong with adding some unique features but one thing viewers hate more than anything else is games being decided by cheese and coinflips. Maps that promote those styles of play are terrible to watch AND play.
Yeah that part is dumb as shit. Three of the maps (Dash & Terminal, Bridgehead and Moonlight Madness) are plagued with huge balance problems, and it makes for a more entertaining viewer experience ? Fuck that.
There will never be map diversity as long as forcefields are in the game. Every single map thread in TL is plagued by protoss balance whining that extra expansions are too wide for forcefields and terran/zerg balance whining that ramps and chokes are too narrow for forcefields.
On July 03 2015 05:32 HewTheTitan wrote: Are they actually actively seeking out feedback?
It's a bit late though, isn't it? We're on to discussing minor balance tweaks. Nobody cares about that, they care about design. This dialogue would have been nice before lotv went into beta.
re: tweaks
Cyclone is boring, I don't think Blizzard understands what we mean when we say we want mech play.
Liberator is uninteresting.
Ghosts aren't snipers, they're psychic/anti-psychic special ops.Terrorist/counter-terror units.
Chat improvements - why weren't these in Wings? Can't we just back up and use bnet 1.0 instead?
Map Diversity - the major problem is how coin flippy the matches are already. If you want to give us better map diversity, let us have some more reliable, affordable scouting options so we can actually respond to our opponents. PvX/TvX has been delightful over the years because of this.
I shouldn't have written anything, nobody cares ;O
Try saying something constructive, offering a suggestion, like that map comment.
When it comes to choosing what is fun for viewers versus fun for pro-players, we believe pro-players having it a bit more rough is more beneficial than having a less entertaining experience watching competitive StarCraft II.
you're right dayvie. Watching bunny lose to a single mothershipcore was really fun and interesting and lead to a more entertaining watching experience :D there is nothing wrong with adding some unique features but one thing viewers hate more than anything else is games being decided by cheese and coinflips. Maps that promote those styles of play are terrible to watch AND play.
Yeah that part is dumb as shit. Three of the maps (Dash & Terminal, Bridgehead and Moonlight Madness) are plagued with huge balance problems, and it makes for a more entertaining viewer experience ? Fuck that.
meh, dislike the direction they push the cyclone into. mech should revolve around the tank with its slow, long set-up time and crazy damage. hope they look at the tank somewhat.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Hence the difference between it and the Nydus is that if you for droom-"drops" you opt for the Nydus. For "low army count"-harass you opt for overlords
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment.
Strong openings that can potentially end the game if the opponent ops for the wrong build is something you needs to avoid (whenever possible)
But I think there is a middle-of-the-road apparoch: Opt for a very cheap upgrade (hatchery tech, 25/25) with relatively fast reserach time (e.g. 60 seconds) that unlocks overlord drops.
1) I know nydus is buffed, but from what I've seen nobody really uses it in LOTV, I'm open to being wrong about that. You could make an argument for that point, but I think historically nydus has been extremely weak. This still doesn't change the fact that zergs early game options really amount to "busting the front" of someone's base...
Shouldn't there be "other" options available? Shouldn't the other player have to worry about more than just getting their wall up? - Zergs have to worry about more...
2) You misunderstand, you CANNOT drop mid game without overlord speed. It's the same as putting your units in flying snails and walking them into turrets and vikings or blink stalkers. It's called suicide. You can't run and you can't even get the units in the base. If it gets spotted the units are almost promised to die without reaching the ground. YOU NEED OVERLORD SPEED to drop past the early game, its not something optional.
3) Every race has build order losses, period. Zvt, terran goes blue flame, I don't make roach. Im basically dead if he keeps making hellions, or expect me to be so far behind there is no chance to catch up.
Addressing your last point, show me that this is broken before you suggest it is removed. I have only seen it make the game more dynamic, which is good. So please tell me about how it's broken, no point you make even comes close to saying close to that. At worse, zerg could get a build order win... God forbid a terran or protoss has to scout something more than a 3rd hatchery.
I'm not a fan of your suggestion as I assume you mean it ("hatchery tech" = lair tech? Zerg starts on hatchery tech) because again it would eliminate the potential set of new openings for zerg.
Again please someone post a replay or argument with substance against why zerg shouldn't have this available? Didn't people complain the same way about early burrow? It just ended up providing more options.
On July 03 2015 06:37 Espers wrote: meh, dislike the direction they push the cyclone into. mech should revolve around the tank with its slow, long set-up time and crazy damage. hope they look at the tank somewhat.
If the ability comes at lair, how is it any different from the other overlord drop ability?!
Low cost-low investment. Only takes 12 seconds to research.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Time is a legitimate point to make, but ovi drops are so weak mid-late game it won't matter.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment. 300 plus gas investment just to be able to attempt shitty drops. That's almost all of the tier 2 upgrades, its not worth it, nobody played it before for a reason.
If you make it lair I promise it becomes like the new swarm host, nobody will use it and with good reason. Mid to late game zerg drops are shit. This actually made drop viable, and it's legitimate, not overpowered.
I again I repeat my point, it's niche and not even viable on any large or four player map. Other zergs please speak up about this, the argument against the ability doesn't have any substance.
If people want to argue against early drop for zerg, then please site an actual example with a vod or rep. Put something legitimate behind it, because I have yet to hear of some REAL reason why this should be nerfed.
I think it is broken in particular against Protoss. I agree that it is a bit hard to judge them properly when playing against failed adept rushes every game or people trying to FFE expand in a world where those drops exists. But it probably changes the matchup too much that there would need to be real changes to early game balance that won't happen. Protoss will probably just fall behind if they have to try and anticipate for those drops.
I could give you replays or tell you my stats with drops and in particular against protoss, but that would basically come down to my second sentence.
And as much as I like playing with them, they are probably infinitely frustrating to play against. Just think what sort of gameplay early medivac drops or blink stalker rushes create.One player just becomes a sitting duck and somehow tries to defend stuff that randomly comes into his base ignoring all Terrain and kind of needs to be able to just have an overpowered army to eventually compensate because that's the only way he can eventually win when he never gets to have any mapcontrol. Those mobile harass tools create good gameplay when both players have them equally and they can counter each other somewhat (hellions vs zerglings, medivacs vs mutalisks, TvT mirrors). But Protoss is pretty much blank in that section.
Please post your replays.
What league are you playing in? If you are masters then it puts more credibility in your comment, but if you are gold-diamond I question if you just don't know what the answer is. Even if you are masters, you might not know the answer, but it doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. We shouldn't eliminate options based on the fact someone hasn't discovered a good answer yet. If it makes play extremely difficult, then remove it... but are you really going to tell me that overlord drops do that?
Best I heard now is a baneling elevator. Thats a massive investment in gas/tech, just leave a couple hellions at home or run drones close to a mothership core. How do you even let an ovi get into place on a land ledge to elevator? Make one stalker, and done?
I rushed ten spellings straight into a toss base and was destroyed by 2 adepts and the msc. My guess was he was opening adept anyway, I got behind and lost the game.
Please, Blizzard, get in your head that we mean positional play revolving around a strong siege tank when we talk about mech. What we not mean is scooting around the map with a ball of factory units (e.g hellion/cyclone) in a protoss-like fashion.
Nerf the tank-medivac interaction and buff tanks straight up so they can be good at their job. I cannot believe that you never tried additional damage to shields for tanks.
If the ability comes at lair, how is it any different from the other overlord drop ability?!
Low cost-low investment. Only takes 12 seconds to research.
It's a higher cost investment if you plan any kind of mass drop.
Time is a legitimate point to make, but ovi drops are so weak mid-late game it won't matter.
Either ability at lair will require ovi speed upgrade just to make it a viable option, and thats 100 more gas investment. 300 plus gas investment just to be able to attempt shitty drops. That's almost all of the tier 2 upgrades, its not worth it, nobody played it before for a reason.
If you make it lair I promise it becomes like the new swarm host, nobody will use it and with good reason. Mid to late game zerg drops are shit. This actually made drop viable, and it's legitimate, not overpowered.
I again I repeat my point, it's niche and not even viable on any large or four player map. Other zergs please speak up about this, the argument against the ability doesn't have any substance.
If people want to argue against early drop for zerg, then please site an actual example with a vod or rep. Put something legitimate behind it, because I have yet to hear of some REAL reason why this should be nerfed.
I think it is broken in particular against Protoss. I agree that it is a bit hard to judge them properly when playing against failed adept rushes every game or people trying to FFE expand in a world where those drops exists. But it probably changes the matchup too much that there would need to be real changes to early game balance that won't happen. Protoss will probably just fall behind if they have to try and anticipate for those drops.
I could give you replays or tell you my stats with drops and in particular against protoss, but that would basically come down to my second sentence.
And as much as I like playing with them, they are probably infinitely frustrating to play against. Just think what sort of gameplay early medivac drops or blink stalker rushes create.One player just becomes a sitting duck and somehow tries to defend stuff that randomly comes into his base ignoring all Terrain and kind of needs to be able to just have an overpowered army to eventually compensate because that's the only way he can eventually win when he never gets to have any mapcontrol. Those mobile harass tools create good gameplay when both players have them equally and they can counter each other somewhat (hellions vs zerglings, medivacs vs mutalisks, TvT mirrors). But Protoss is pretty much blank in that section.
Please post your replays.
What league are you playing in? If you are masters then it puts more credibility in your comment, but if you are gold-diamond I question if you just don't know what the answer is. Even if you are masters, you might not know the answer, but it doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. We shouldn't eliminate options based on the fact someone hasn't discovered a good answer yet. If it makes play extremely difficult, then remove it... but are you really going to tell me that overlord drops do that?
Best I heard now is a baneling elevator. Thats a massive investment in gas/tech, just leave a couple hellions at home or run drones close to a mothership core. How do you even let an ovi get into place on a land ledge to elevator? Make one stalker, and done?
I rushed ten spellings straight into a toss base and was destroyed by 2 adepts and the msc. My guess was he was opening adept anyway, I got behind and lost the game.
If you want to look through meaningless LotV play: http://lotv.spawningtool.com/890/ http://lotv.spawningtool.com/891/ http://lotv.spawningtool.com/892/ The first one might be remotely interesting because ReWind is a high Masters Protoss in HotS afaik. No clue about the others. I have more, but they become even less meaningful after those. The players often just rush adepts and the counter to that is just to overwhelm them with zerglings and drop the zerglings into the Protoss base, because with drops you are suddenly allowed to overmake units and undermake workers as zerg.
The build order should more or less always be the same: 16hatch 15OL 15pool 15gas @100gas get ling speed @100gas get OL speed and then just start elevatoring zerglings with 2-3OLs, while also attacking the front. Possibly include banelings. Possibly defend an attack first.
You can consider me diamond or masters or whatever my current skill level is. Not playing HotS anymore, not going to go back to it, dunno where I would place.
I don't understand why so many people are demanding mech revolve around tanks. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy tank play. I love TvT and both sides maneuver around each other to gain a better position, but I don't see what's wrong with Bliz trying to have mech work with other units.
If tanks are pivotal vT, but vP and vZ its hardly used, I am ok with that. But they need to give mech another route against the other two races. If that is with Cyclones and Liberators, then ok cool. Currently in HotS mech has near zero viability against Protoss and Zerg.
Do we really want tanks to be the only mech route against all races?
On July 03 2015 07:39 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I don't understand why so many people are demanding mech revolve around tanks. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy tank play. I love TvT and both sides maneuver around each other to gain a better position, but I don't see what's wrong with Bliz trying to have mech work with other units.
If tanks are pivotal vT, but vP and vZ its hardly used, I am ok with that. But they need to give mech another route against the other two races. If that is with Cyclones and Liberators, then ok cool. Currently in HotS mech has near zero viability against Protoss and Zerg.
Do we really want tanks to be the only mech route against all races?
Yes.
When people say "mech" as a strategy, they generally don't just mean "any unit that happens to be produced from the factory", they are referring to the specific positional style that was played in BW, which is dependent on having a powerful but immobile unit aka the tank. Also there's no point in having multiple viable compositions if they all play similarly. Bio is already the mobile, harass-based style, so it would be nice if mech gameplay had a high contrast.
On July 03 2015 07:39 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I don't understand why so many people are demanding mech revolve around tanks. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy tank play. I love TvT and both sides maneuver around each other to gain a better position, but I don't see what's wrong with Bliz trying to have mech work with other units.
If tanks are pivotal vT, but vP and vZ its hardly used, I am ok with that. But they need to give mech another route against the other two races. If that is with Cyclones and Liberators, then ok cool. Currently in HotS mech has near zero viability against Protoss and Zerg.
Do we really want tanks to be the only mech route against all races?
That blog is a pretty good summary of what people are usually getting at when they complain about the tank being de-emphasized in factory compositions. Generally "immobile main army" and "mech" are considered more or less synonymous, and if the game shifts away from those principles people think it's worse.
That doesn't mean that everything has to be about the tank; the widow mine, for instance, also has to root itself to do its work, so it is arguably also an immobile unit to have in the main army. Harass units like vultures or hellions can serve support roles, either by harassing, scouting, or simply "tanking" damage for the siege tanks. But if you have, say, a hellion/cyclone/thor composition, it's not "mech" in the classical sense.
i think many people just want there to be a slow, powerful, setup style. - something that isnt viable in the game right now. most people dont want "mech" as in building mechanical units. Its the style of play they want.
If you wanted a mechanical unit that just hits hard, and is viable . you could just make immortals.
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
the economy change already forces mech to be more spread out which makes it possible to buff them straight up because you can't have them all together anymore.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
Tanks are super good vs low hp army and bad vs high HP army.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
Result: Tanks better vs high hp armies. Tanks are not so strong vs low hp as with splits sac small groups can draw out initial shots giving low hp army better chance.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
All right, so I thought I'd add a few thoughts about this post ^^.
1) Holy sh** mother****** balls %&$# wat Blizzard is actually giving us weekly updates. This is all we've been asking for all along, we just wanted to feel like we were being heard instead of posting tons of suggestion and idea threads, and then getting a lackluster patch where they change something insignificant like hellbat splash radius or something -- like, where did all of the positive and constructive ideas from the community go?
So, basically, this is a huge improvement on Blizzard's part, and it amazes me that they were surprised that we felt out of touch, especially considering how incredibly little we heard from them in the first few weeks of the beta. I hope they keep the updates rolling in; it would be a real shame if this dropped off in a week or two and we went back to the way things were.
2) The proposed Ghost snipe is actually identical to the Raven seeker missile redesign in the beginning of HotS beta, and that did not go well because it was basically just a worse version of Yamato at the same tech. Putting it onto the ghost relieves some of the redundancy, but does not change the fact that it is a spammable damage ability which contributes to deathball play and large "whoever wins this fight wins the game" engagements. I agree with them on skillshots, but they definitely need to ditch the idea of snipe altogether and just come up with something better -- even the weird armor drone was a better idea.
3) Pro players and ESPORTS are supported by the viewers, and thereby the players as well. The most important thing is the gameplay -- make the game fun to play, and people will play and watch it. I think it's a trap to get caught up in "map diversity" and things of that nature without addressing the real concern of making playing on the maps fun. Destructible rocks and watch towers were a good start, but maps in general are very lackluster and rigid in design mostly due to the restrictions placed on each race via their design (as well as a host of other issues like high ground advantage, space control, etc.). Blizzard should be working towards making maps more dynamic rather than making them more imbalanced. However, that said, I'm glad they're trying new things rather than sticking to the careful, tender, "SC2 is a small fragile baby who can't take any amount of change or it'll die" approach they've always had.
4) The mech changes feel fairly directionless. Blizzard simply cannot make up their mind about mech upgrades, and seem to have no idea how to balance the two compositions together without simply ignoring the other. The ravager change is fine -- good QoL change, and it's good to see that they're progressing with the Liberator (though there is still a lot of concern that this simply overlaps with the tank and makes it even more obsolete).
Anyways, I'm just glad Blizzard is communicating with the community, and I hope they keep it up!
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
The Lockdown example doesn't fit because Terrans have mechs as well as Protoss. That makes it useful for TvT and TvP. Irradiate affected all three races (the competitive usage is irrelevant, the possibilities are the focus of design and not the direct application). If a unit or ability affects more than one race then it's fine even if niche, but if it affects only one race differently then it's not a design they should seek to repeat, especially if the design affects all units of that race evenly, which the Widow Mine does.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
It was a specific lore reason that they decided not to have infested Protoss units or structures. They said it felt like a slap in the face that the Protoss could be corrupted by a lowly biological race, and they made the appearance of infested Protoss in the comics only semi-canon.
Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote: Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle.
On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote: Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle.
I was referring to Protoss in LOTV, which isn't really working at all right now. It's pretty much mass adept every game until you either win (somehow), or you lose.
On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote: Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle.
I was referring to Protoss in LOTV, which isn't really working at all right now. It's pretty much mass adept every game until you either win (somehow), or you lose.
I really really hope the lack of change to Protoss is because they have some sort of huge change in their racial design in the works that they're not willing to share right now. I know that's super unlikely but I can dream, right?
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
The Lockdown example doesn't fit because Terrans have mechs as well as Protoss. That makes it useful for TvT and TvP. Irradiate affected all three races (the competitive usage is irrelevant, the possibilities are the focus of design and not the direct application). If a unit or ability affects more than one race then it's fine even if niche, but if it affects only one race differently then it's not a design they should seek to repeat, especially if the design affects all units of that race evenly, which the Widow Mine does.
Well, as far as the +Shields damage goes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that on the scale of design atrocities committed by SC2 to date (and being continued even in LotV), this would rank "not ideal, but extremely tolerable."
But in terms of actually finding a solution, Charoisaur has suggested that the LotV economy allows for a straight-up beefier Siege Tank. I haven't played LotV and have no way to gauge how true this is, but if it's worth investigating, then I hope Blizzard seriously looks into it.
I can dream to. Five patches from now, Protoss becomes a race everyone wants to play. Blizzard fixes this by redesigning stuff for terran/zerg, now people cant decide which race they wanna play.
I've been also playing Dota2, and I really like the features game client has: watch live games, watch other players games, watch turnaments (buy tickets) and ect. (all other feathers as well). These let improve, also entertain by themselves. SC2 also should have these features, like ability to watch live games - search someone famous playing and watch (for live maybe with 5-10 min delay). Like not only game itself, but also game client experience should be more entertaining.
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
The Lockdown example doesn't fit because Terrans have mechs as well as Protoss. That makes it useful for TvT and TvP. Irradiate affected all three races (the competitive usage is irrelevant, the possibilities are the focus of design and not the direct application). If a unit or ability affects more than one race then it's fine even if niche, but if it affects only one race differently then it's not a design they should seek to repeat, especially if the design affects all units of that race evenly, which the Widow Mine does.
Well, as far as the +Shields damage goes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that on the scale of design atrocities committed by SC2 to date (and being continued even in LotV), this would rank "not ideal, but extremely tolerable."
But in terms of actually finding a solution, Charoisaur has suggested that the LotV economy allows for a straight-up beefier Siege Tank. I haven't played LotV and have no way to gauge how true this is, but if it's worth investigating, then I hope Blizzard seriously looks into it.
So long as it doesn't survive an additional hit from opposing Siege Tanks, or from a unit bating your own Siege Tanks to fire within .4687 radius of it. In other words, it shouldn't survive more than 4 shots. In a perfect world, it also wouldn't survive more than 3 shots from a fully-upgraded tank. I'd gladly pay an extra 25 minerals per tank for them to have 200hp. More realistically, the same price and 180hp would make more sense. Although switching the HP of Cyclones with that of Siege Tanks seems pretty rad, especially if accompanied by a slight cost decrease to Cyclones.
On July 03 2015 11:47 SC2John wrote: 3) Pro players and ESPORTS are supported by the viewers, and thereby the players as well. The most important thing is the gameplay -- make the game fun to play, and people will play and watch it. I think it's a trap to get caught up in "map diversity" and things of that nature without addressing the real concern of making playing on the maps fun. Destructible rocks and watch towers were a good start, but maps in general are very lackluster and rigid in design mostly due to the restrictions placed on each race via their design (as well as a host of other issues like high ground advantage, space control, etc.). Blizzard should be working towards making maps more dynamic rather than making them more imbalanced. However, that said, I'm glad they're trying new things rather than sticking to the careful, tender, "SC2 is a small fragile baby who can't take any amount of change or it'll die" approach they've always had.
first of all, regarding the viewers game esports thing, if this is what Blizzard wants to push there is very little to be done about it, you either accept it or vote with the wallet and don't give them any support.
as for making maps more dynamic, this would likely require a huge overhaul of the game which won't be happening anytime soon given their behaviour over the last years.
Putting it onto the ghost relieves some of the redundancy, but does not change the fact that it is a spammable damage ability which contributes to deathball play and large "whoever wins this fight wins the game" engagements. I agree with them on skillshots, but they definitely need to ditch the idea of snipe altogether and just come up with something better -- even the weird armor drone was a better idea.
Not sure it's really spamable though. I expect that it will have much higher energy cost and it also has counterplay. But I think it will feel a bit tedious to execute the counter micro (click on the Ghost).
Skillshots are fun because you dodge them by moving your units. On the other hand, clicking on a unit in order to "micro" is unexciting.
Pro players and ESPORTS are supported by the viewers, and thereby the players as well. The most important thing is the gameplay -- make the game fun to play, and people will play and watch it. I think it's a trap to get caught up in "map diversity" and things of that nature without addressing the real concern of making playing on the maps fun
Definitely this. The main goal should not be to make "a good esport", but to make a game that is fun to play for the target group. Esports = Secondary objective.
However, in many situations there is also none-to-little discrepenacy between good esport-games and solid RTS-design. E.g. cheese and dumb all-ins are both unfun to play vs and watch. And most great microinteractions are also fun to play and watch too.
@ Cyclone
The Cyclone is problematic as its an all-round core unit and thus simply overlaps with the Siege Tank. Often times you won't be satifised by just building a few Cyclones, but instead benefit by massing them.
I suggest to give it an ability that you could cast on your own units to make them better in some way. This way it could have utility along with bio and mech-units without being strong when massed.
On top of that it could have lower base-damage (and range) but bonus damage to structures so it could kill static defense easier, and thus support the Hellion when harassing.
Charoisaur has suggested that the LotV economy allows for a straight-up beefier Siege Tank. I haven't played LotV and have no way to gauge how true this is, but if it's worth investigating, then I hope Blizzard seriously looks into it.
The (future) PDD-redesign, tank-drop nerf + LOTV economy should give room for a tank-buff. At least it is something that is worth testing in my opinion. We have bio that is very mobile, fast-paced and fun, and thus mech shouldn't just be Cyclones and Hellions moving around the map. Instead, having a strong positional unit is imo a must.
............ took me more than 10 sentences to realize that this was not a update on the teamliquid feedback. I am just going to sit outside for 15 minutes
Love the updates. It's nice to see their thought process, and the swing-and-miss ideas like smartcast skillshots. Thank you DK and anyone else for taking the time to do these updates every Friday.
On July 03 2015 19:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Love the updates. It's nice to see their thought process, and the swing-and-miss ideas like smartcast skillshots. Thank you DK and anyone else for taking the time to do these updates every Friday.
Couldn't agree more, it's awesome to have these posts on a regular basis! It's actually a nice motivation to play beta and give even more and further detailed feedback, thanks for this new approach!
• Higher damage on Cyclones accompanied by rolling the range upgrade into the unit. • A change to lock-on functionality that causes the ability to break if the Cyclone loses vision.
My suggestion to the Cyclone would be: Remove the anti air upg for it. Give it's normal attack the turret thingy that was also suggested to the Siege Tank and the Immortal. Making it's standard attack better for kiting. Buff the attack damage of that attack aswell and make it so it can attack air units from the get go. The unit does not start off with Lock-On, but is an upgrade on the Factory Tech Lab. Lock-On should have a cooldown of like 10 or something and breaks when unit is outside of vision. Lock-On could then be made super strong if need to be, since microing against it, nullifies it. Going out of vision/Blink/Burrow/disrupting the Cyclone with Phoenix lift or something like that. With a 10 sec cooldown and such strong counterplay, it would then be more important for pro players to manually target high priority targets that don't have this anti Lock-On capability, such as Blink and the likes. The key here is making it's normal attack so strong that it isn't ONLY reliant on the Lock-On.
On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote: Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
Based on what Dayvie said in the acer interview, I think it's the last alternative.
how about, remove cyclone, add spectre. give him (or her, multiple DT models is very cool, do ghosts too) lockdown, irradiate, and even maybe the armor drone.
i gotta wonder if there aren't more campaign units that would have actually fit better into the game than some of the newer units. they already have corsairs and goliaths in the game, why not give them a try? what about the viking splash upgrade? you wouldn't need the liberator at all...
the fact that the spectre is just now an idea in my head for this makes me more and more disappointed in the progress. what an easy design idea that differentiates the game from BW... and this whole "it's needs to be different from BW" thing is ridiculous. DotA 2 is basically a clone of warcraft dota, and it certainly doesn't seem like it's suffering for it.
for maps, i say add miss chance uphill. dota 2 is the only modern isometric game that feels engaging in that respect. LoL, Heroes, and SC2 are all FLAT. oh, can't see uphill? yes, actually i have colossus, or any air unit, so i'm fine because the game is actually flat, and the ramps are all actually bushes. miss chance would immediately buff defender's advantage during most early-mid all-ins, on almost every map, and in every match-up.. it seems like a no-brainer to me.
for maps, i say add miss chance uphill. dota 2 is the only modern isometric game that feels engaging in that respect. LoL, Heroes, and SC2 are all FLAT. oh, can't see uphill? yes, actually i have colossus, or any air unit, so i'm fine because the game is actually flat, and the ramps are all actually bushes. miss chance would immediately buff defender's advantage during most early-mid all-ins, on almost every map, and in every match-up.. it seems like a no-brainer to me.
at least they're talking now, though.
Maps in SC2 aren't flat at all. In fact, cliffs are used heavily to restrict harass strategies / enemy movement towards your base, and delimitate how easy is to secure bases.
However, I think that removing high ground miss chance simply makes terrain dumber. Many problems about all-ins and so could be easily solved by having the miss chance, since it would be easier to defend them. For example, Bunkers and Tanks could be set much more in front positions to prevent Blink all-ins, or Stalkers/Hydras up-ramp could defend more against early pushes.
In fact, when facing a defensive scenario, Bio/Stalkers can just focus fire really easily your units that are up-cliff, specially tanks.
Maps in SC2 aren't flat at all. In fact, cliffs are used heavily to restrict harass strategies / enemy movement towards your base, and delimitate how easy is to secure bases.
I think he meant that it's basically is the same as being flat, since there's not much high ground advantage atm.
I think high range units contribute to why balls of death are so strong and using high ground to counter this would be smart. So I'd like to see units have -1 range when they target units on high ground. Units would act more like Roach engagements where concaves are a lot more important, since range eliminates importance of surface area. Melee units already suck at encroaching at these positions, so having ranged units act a little more like melee units, will have huge impact. It's also not relying on external factors such as RNG, which isn't prevalent in SC2 at all already, so no need to introduce it now.
Maps in SC2 aren't flat at all. In fact, cliffs are used heavily to restrict harass strategies / enemy movement towards your base, and delimitate how easy is to secure bases.
I think he meant that it's basically is the same as being flat, since there's not much high ground advantage atm.
I think high range units contribute to why balls of death are so strong and using high ground to counter this would be smart. So I'd like to see units have -1 range when they target units on high ground. Units would act more like Roach engagements where concaves are a lot more important, since range eliminates importance of surface area. Melee units already suck at encroaching at these positions, so having ranged units act a little more like melee units, will have huge impact. It's also not relying on external factors such as RNG, which isn't prevalent in SC2 at all already, so no need to introduce it now.
Mmmm... I don't know, but applying -1 range attacking upwards might seem confusing from a DK perspective. They always want things quite evident and exact, that's why theoretically we don't have high ground chance in SC2. It might work, but it's all about trying.
I think we could also try -50% damage, this way armor upgrades will matter more, recreating the BW effect of slower fights because of the % damage reduction on damage type. Having half the DPS would have a great impact, with maps adapted to it. For example, it would make defender's advantage a real thing in PvP. Army positioning vs Blink all ins would also be interesting and much more relevant, for sure, and Tank positioning vs bio pushes could be a bit more agressive. Same goes for Spinecrawlers/cannons.
In my view, what made the pre-nerf version of the Cyclone so interesting for Mech was not the overly powerful attack or range. It was the fact that you could actually produce right out of your first/second factories and survive early game TvP.
With the first version of the Cyclone, if you correctly identified that any type of cheese was incoming you could devote your resources/attention to defending and actually feel ahead as a Mech player if you were successful in stopping whatever cheese came your way. Lets face it, in current HOTS, the only ways to survive once you identify that Protoss is committing to early aggression (aka cheese):
- Get lucky with scouting; - Make tanks and hope you guessed right and its not stargates or immortal all-in; - Pump out units from the barracks and get a Starport early to produce from those two buildings;
Unless you guessed right, producing out of 1/2 factories is a very big risk in the early game. Even if you survive, how could Mech based play punish protoss after surviving a cheese?
The vanilla Cyclone removed this problem with the survivability of Factory (Mech) openings and let you use 1/2 factories to survive in TvP. Then, the cyclone is mobile and stand-alone enough that you could perhaps even threaten some kind of pressure or contain. After all, we can survive by producing non-stop from at least one factory in the other match-ups, and then actually force a Zerg/Terran to feel like they now have to defend or make excess units to break a follow-up contain. There is a price to pay for failing a cheese.
If we could have a safe factory based opening in TvP for Mech when detect some kind of early aggression, and if we then do a good job in scouting/harassing and transitioning well in the remainder of the game, things already work fairly well in Mech TvP, especially with Battlecruisers having recently obtained an indirect buff against Tempest. Bio does have this option since investing into Stim/Starport gives that style an advantage (pressure or possibility to expand faster) after the aggression has been stopped because you have your tech in place and possibly even 2-3 barracks.
After adding back some early game AA capability to the Cyclone (even if the DPS/range were overall weaker), I would think that only tweaks would potentially be required (either during beta or post-release of LOTV) for Mech to become quite viable in all three match-ups.
I believe that an "all-purpose" early game Cyclone defense is what Mech needs. It should be the equivalent of Stim/Medivac cheese defense, but on factories. It would allow Mech to transition better into the mid-game perhaps with a more delayed Starport (since air units do not really help Mech pressure toss or hold a third), and the Mech player could instead expand to the 3rd earlier and/or add an extra factory.
This is even more needed now that you need the EB again to make turrets. That change was essentially a double nerf along with the Cyclone loss of AA. With what I propose above, it does not matter if the EB remains a requirement for turrets - the cyclone would replace turrets for factory play.
My 2 cents.
Elendur
Edit: Completely worth a mention that I love Blizzard's new approach of communicating and listening to the community - and even more the apparent will to consider implementation of some of the recommendations that have been made.
In my view, what made the pre-nerf version of the Cyclone so interesting for Mech was not the overly powerful attack or range. It was the fact that you could actually produce right out of your first/second factories and survive early game TvP.
Doesn't make it interesting though. Rather it functioned as a band-aid fix to a problem that Blizzard apparently doesn't wanna adress as they see more "action" when the problem isn't fixed.
Problem with all-round Cyclone is that it overlaps with the Siege Tank. You need very distinct advantages and disadvantages in order to incentivize playes to not just mass Cyclones.
On July 03 2015 11:47 SC2John wrote: 3) Pro players and ESPORTS are supported by the viewers, and thereby the players as well. The most important thing is the gameplay -- make the game fun to play, and people will play and watch it. I think it's a trap to get caught up in "map diversity" and things of that nature without addressing the real concern of making playing on the maps fun. Destructible rocks and watch towers were a good start, but maps in general are very lackluster and rigid in design mostly due to the restrictions placed on each race via their design (as well as a host of other issues like high ground advantage, space control, etc.). Blizzard should be working towards making maps more dynamic rather than making them more imbalanced. However, that said, I'm glad they're trying new things rather than sticking to the careful, tender, "SC2 is a small fragile baby who can't take any amount of change or it'll die" approach they've always had.
first of all, regarding the viewers game esports thing, if this is what Blizzard wants to push there is very little to be done about it, you either accept it or vote with the wallet and don't give them any support.
as for making maps more dynamic, this would likely require a huge overhaul of the game which won't be happening anytime soon given their behaviour over the last years.
It's not about overhauling the game, but at least making some positive steps in the area. I gave the example of destructible/collapsible rocks, which changes a lot of different strategies and scenarios, and that's a good start! But we definitely need more "map features" and [Blizzard to have] at least some idea that map positioning is more than just where minerals are ^^.
Not sure if anyone has ever suggested this idea, but I feel that the nuke should have a radiation cloud that lingers for a certain amount of time. Units caught within cloud get attack range decreased. Cloud does extra damage to structures over time, and can destroy structures, but does significantly less damage to units with out actually killing units (almost like plague from defilers, but I mean a lot less damage).
On July 05 2015 01:57 ClipSitch wrote: Not sure if anyone has ever suggested this idea, but I feel that the nuke should have a radiation cloud that lingers for a certain amount of time. Units caught within cloud get attack range decreased. Cloud does extra damage to structures over time, and can destroy structures, but does significantly less damage to units with out actually killing units (almost like plague from defilers, but I mean a lot less damage).
I know the realism argument doesn't count for much, but I was reading about World War I battles and how entire areas were destroyed and for many years became uninhabitable deadzones, with toxins, corpses and explosives littering the ground. In contrast, in Starcraft 2 the nuke gives a three second graphical effect after landing which then disappears. It made me feel that the landscape should constantly be altered and slowly turn deceased after repeated shelling in order to emphasize your connection with this fictional world. You win the game, but you've destroyed everything and many people are dead, and so on.
On July 05 2015 01:57 ClipSitch wrote: Not sure if anyone has ever suggested this idea, but I feel that the nuke should have a radiation cloud that lingers for a certain amount of time. Units caught within cloud get attack range decreased. Cloud does extra damage to structures over time, and can destroy structures, but does significantly less damage to units with out actually killing units (almost like plague from defilers, but I mean a lot less damage).
I know the realism argument doesn't count for much, but I was reading about World War I battles and how entire areas were destroyed and for many years became uninhabitable deadzones, with toxins, corpses and explosives littering the ground. In contrast, in Starcraft 2 the nuke gives a three second graphical effect after landing which then disappears. It made me feel that the landscape should constantly be altered and slowly turn deceased after repeated shelling in order to emphasize your connection with this fictional world. You win the game, but you've destroyed everything and many people are dead, and so on.
If you want that you have to play Command and Conquer (the old games). In C&C3 you could shoot holes in the ground, make it unbuildable, create resources (that damage infantry units) and shoot biological weapons that leave behind toxic clouds that deal damage over time if they touch anything. I dont think this works in SC since it is a different kind of game. The nuke itself feels really out of place and should be replaced (in my opinion) with a much smaller scale bomb that is less all-or-nothing.
It's good that they want more map variation but I think the race design forces it one way. Maybe if the high ground mechanic was stronger it could give more options. Nice that they're talking skillshots but it sounds like PR speak for we've decided not to. I don't see why having to select one unit to use them should be a bad thing. It'd improve storm if it wasn't blanket castable with 3 spammy clicks.
Nice that they're talking skillshots but it sounds like PR speak for we've decided not to. I don't see why having to select one unit to use them should be a bad thing. It'd improve storm if it wasn't blanket castable with 3 spammy clicks.
Unintuitive (because its inconsistent) and raises the learning barrier. You can have line-skillshots in the game but only on big expensive units. Not massable units.
On July 06 2015 17:10 SilverBullet wrote: does anyone else think FIVE SECONDS OF NOT BEING DAMAGED is ridiculous ? Just blanket storm the area to counter ?
Or the fact that bio vs protoss demands that you stutterstep the bio to avoid colossus/disruptors until the vikings clean up?
Five seconds in a TvP end-game fight is a really long time
It definitely is. I posted in the Battle.net thread that the shot could autocomplete upon taking damage or moving proportionate to the elapsed cast time. That way if someone Storms you after 4 seconds of casting, you'd still get 80% of the damage on the target, or if you don't need the full 5 seconds to kill a lower-hp target like a Templar or Infestor, you can manually cancel the cast yourself.
On July 06 2015 17:10 SilverBullet wrote: does anyone else think FIVE SECONDS OF NOT BEING DAMAGED is ridiculous ? Just blanket storm the area to counter ?
Or the fact that bio vs protoss demands that you stutterstep the bio to avoid colossus/disruptors until the vikings clean up?
Five seconds in a TvP end-game fight is a really long time
5 seconds seems quite long, but if the damage is quite high then it could warrant the delay.
It would need some testing, but I think the delay vs damage could be balanced into a nice spot.
I like the idea, but 5 seconds would need teaking.
Right now, it feels like a single damage nuke, while the nuke is well.. a nuke.
On July 04 2015 20:33 Charoisaur wrote: I like the design of cyclones but they should be a support unit and not a core unit. Mass cyclones is just not interesting to watch
Mech is missing a boring core unit that is mediocre vs anything though. Viking would exactly fit the role if the ground mode would not have an armored tag. And it would even be interesting. But I don't think people will be able to deal with a strategic button press. Reaction buttons like Stim seems to work fine. But stuff that needs you to assess the situation and press a button accordingly seems to not work even at pro level. Example would be the HotS Thor (that one is out of battle use only even), or the WoL Voidray (well thats not a button press but charging them pre battle falls under that category Imo). I would say its the game speed that makes it impossible to tie a decision to a button in a defensive way. Since thats something you can't train with muscle memory, the muscle memory might even screw you over in that case.
And with a boring mech core unit, they could make the Thor and Siege Tank interesting maybe without using the Medivac for once to spice things up for Terran. Could even remove the Hellbat and say use the Hellion, now you have your core unit so you can micro those in a fight.
Whatever happens, the important bit is execution. In other words, talk is cheap. If all this "communication" results in excuses why this and that won't work and how dkim's original vision is correct, then it only serves as a distraction to deflect criticism, which is what I think is happening here. We better get something tangible in a future beta.
But I'll make a prediction here. Nothing will come of this new fangled communication: We'll still end up with Dropcraft, Gimmickcraft, Basetradecraft -- how dkim thinks SC2 should be played.
EPT
Ah well, beggars can't be choosers.
