|
France1939 Posts
On July 14 2015 04:33 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 04:25 blae000 wrote:
I lose more and more interest for every post I read from blizz that does not include anything related to economy changes but does include "new ability".. read 100 threads in this forum and you'll find 300 different versions of what people think the ideal economy is and they'll all be 100% certain their way is the best what do you want them to do? pick one out of a hat? i think the new economy is fine. the significance of econ is overblown anyway. no matter how the economy works the meta will stabilize, the game will become less chaotic and what's important will be your skill at the game seriously, i don't care how fast i have to expand, i just want good unit interaction
The GEM one is pretty decent imo... They should pick that.
I'm not sure I like the direction the disruptor is taking... I would have wanted an increase in radius and lower damage and speed. To make it more of a position breaker and less of a core aoe damage dealer. Guess we'll have to try it out but I fear this version is not going to be a late game aoe option and P will basicaly need to fall back on virtually only storm in the late game.
|
On July 14 2015 04:39 MaestroMaus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 04:25 blae000 wrote:
I lose more and more interest for every post I read from blizz that does not include anything related to economy changes but does include "new ability".. Posts like this and other posts I read at the blizz forums with content such as: "toss still not fixed" "economy still not changed" "toss still not deleted" "terran still imba" "terran still M&M&M tier 1 bullshit" A. Isn't constructive. B. Adds to the toxic sphere right now in the community. C. Completely bypasses the fact that LOTV is still months away and might bring the change you want. D. Completely bypasses the fact that most of the people in this comment thread can't even play the beta yet and are either theory crafting or going by beta tournaments they saw on streams. Sure; your allowed to debate. Sure; you are allowed to voice your opinion. But at least be constructive and mature about it instead of throwing a tantrum that you aren't getting change x you want so badly.
I agree with this, half of the economy and Protoss design whiners are all the same exact people posting the exact same thing on multiple threads, I question sometimes if these people even play the beta or if they just sit there and theory craft.
By the way, for my constructive post on the matter
1. Zealot Legs at Twilight Council/Charge removed from game so Zealots can be fast and benefit from great control, Charge is stupid, A move, and to make Charge NOT stupid requires weird design changes, just be done with it, it sucks.
2. Adept shield upgrade changed to + dmg vs. armored or chain damage they are tanky enough they just get outclassed
the further the game goes they need a little "bump" in the mid to late game.
3. Stalkers are awesome, don't touch them, anyone that says otherwise hasn't faced blink/sentry.
|
On July 14 2015 04:06 SNSeigifried wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 03:28 DinoMight wrote:On July 14 2015 03:26 pieroog wrote:
I like those changes a lot (especially to Disruptor) but..... isn't 170dmg with a Ghost's Snipe too much? Well, it's only to bio. So there aren't that many targets for it. And there is a 3 second setup time which is a long time. all zerg units are bio also can be used on marines/reapers/marauders/hellbats/zealots/hts/dts/adepts
Well I'm just saying it can't be used on something like Battlecruisers or Colossus to bring them down fast.
And I think it's meant to work on Ultras. So that's fine.
|
On July 14 2015 04:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 04:39 MaestroMaus wrote:On July 14 2015 04:25 blae000 wrote:
I lose more and more interest for every post I read from blizz that does not include anything related to economy changes but does include "new ability".. Posts like this and other posts I read at the blizz forums with content such as: "toss still not fixed" "economy still not changed" "toss still not deleted" "terran still imba" "terran still M&M&M tier 1 bullshit" A. Isn't constructive. B. Adds to the toxic sphere right now in the community. C. Completely bypasses the fact that LOTV is still months away and might bring the change you want. D. Completely bypasses the fact that most of the people in this comment thread can't even play the beta yet and are either theory crafting or going by beta tournaments they saw on streams. Sure; your allowed to debate. Sure; you are allowed to voice your opinion. But at least be constructive and mature about it instead of throwing a tantrum that you aren't getting change x you want so badly. I agree with this, half of the economy and Protoss design whiners are all the same exact people posting the exact same thing on multiple threads, I question sometimes if these people even play the beta or if they just sit there and theory craft. By the way, for my constructive post on the matter 1. Zealot Legs at Twilight Council/Charge removed from game so Zealots can be fast and benefit from great control, Charge is stupid, A move, and to make Charge NOT stupid requires weird design changes, just be done with it, it sucks. 2. Adept shield upgrade changed to + dmg vs. armored or chain damage they are tanky enough they just get outclassed the further the game goes they need a little "bump" in the mid to late game. 3. Stalkers are awesome, don't touch them, anyone that says otherwise hasn't faced blink/sentry.
Why don't people get this... YOU CANNOT REMOVE CHARGE AND KEEP CONCUSSIVE SHELLS. I'm all for faster Zealots that can be microed etc. but concussive shells flat out kill any micro potential.
|
I think that building Ghosts in TvT was pretty uncommon, but it might open up some interesting avenues for new army comps, although I don't genuinely see them being practical against the bio army when you can just build units to kill bio instead. That said, I'd have to play some Legacy before any more theorycrafting.
But this definitely looks like a better solution to Ultras than the armour reduction.
|
On July 14 2015 04:44 OtherWorld wrote:
Why are the minimap changes for LotV only and not for HotS?
they probably don't want to spend dev time on hots that could be spent on lotv instead, and also making things lotv exclusive adds incentive for people to buy lotv i guess
|
I like these changes. One thing related to bugs:
Is it just me or are the hotkey settings still based on HotS beta? Like I'm trying to configure my Protoss hotkeys but the Stargate only shows the Phoenix, VR and Carrier, no Disruptor in the Robo Facility, etc. Also I checked the Factory and the Warhound is still in there.
Is there any way I can get to the other units, specifically MSC and Adept, so I can change them too?
|
On July 14 2015 03:12 BisuDagger wrote:Overall positive changes. Positives I really like. Toying with ravens and increasing auto turret damage. Working with what the ghost has already in its arsenal. Regarding the ghost, I'd like to see how nukes work there way back into the game too. Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 03:11 HmmmCookies wrote:
Still no economy change? Come on Blizz get your...stuff...together! Blizzard is most certainly aware that there are people unhappy with the current economy. It's kind of tiring to hear people complain about. No point in beating a dead horse. I'd rather here how you feel about the current changes and what impact it could have on the game.
The point is the game will be garbage until they fix this, who cares about the unit changes until then?
|
Shouldn't there be a system whereby contributions from community members are acknowledged and they get the game at a reduced price? In reality Blizzard are crowd sourcing game testers!!!
|
On July 14 2015 04:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Adept shield upgrade changed to + dmg vs. armored or chain damage they are tanky enough they just get outclassed
the further the game goes they need a little "bump" in the mid to late game.
Bonus against light and armored? Do you really want to kill the terran bio style against protoss?
Agree with you that in mid game it's more difficult to play Adept but terran have the same issue with reaper...
|
On July 14 2015 05:02 IntoTheheart wrote:
I think that building Ghosts in TvT was pretty uncommon, but it might open up some interesting avenues for new army comps, although I don't genuinely see them being practical against the bio army when you can just build units to kill bio instead. That said, I'd have to play some Legacy before any more theorycrafting.
But this definitely looks like a better solution to Ultras than the armour reduction.
definetly better than the drone but still 3 secs (better that the original 5 xD) looks too long, i guess it will depend on the snipes range.
i wonder how the new ghost vs ht dance will be
|
On July 14 2015 03:26 pieroog wrote:
I like those changes a lot (especially to Disruptor) but..... isn't 170dmg with a Ghost's Snipe too much?
170 seems alrght:
Kills any Terran bio unit (Marine, Marauder, Ghost, Reaper, SCV, Hellbat) and any Protoss bio unit (Zealot, HT, DT, Adept) in one shot. Assuming it has a balanced energy cost or the 3 second thing ends up being a big deal, the only real targets for those two races are the spellcasters and DT's. And 3 seconds means they can cast some spells or have a chance to interrupt the damage.
So really it's a TvZ-focused spell, and would especially be useful for the new ultras (3 snipes = ded ultra). Could also deal with Lurkers or Brood Lords, not killing them outright but getting them close enough so that either a second snipe or a few auxiliary forces can deal with them easily. Think 2012 fungal vs. lings, baneling vs drones or BW storm vs lurker/muta. So I like this direction.
|
On July 14 2015 05:19 Topin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 05:02 IntoTheheart wrote:
I think that building Ghosts in TvT was pretty uncommon, but it might open up some interesting avenues for new army comps, although I don't genuinely see them being practical against the bio army when you can just build units to kill bio instead. That said, I'd have to play some Legacy before any more theorycrafting.
But this definitely looks like a better solution to Ultras than the armour reduction. definetly betther than the drone but still 3 secs (better that the original 5 xD) looks too long, i guess it will depend on the snipes range. i wonder how the new ghost vs ht dance will be
It should be a lot more interesting. HT gets all the storms off that he can before dying, or going in to feed/storm the ghost while the bio ball tries to prevent him, etc.
|
Ladder is a great news, i think it will bring more people to play :D. Especially since it seems that there was a big invite wave recently  .
|
France1939 Posts
On July 14 2015 05:18 PickyProtoss wrote:
Shouldn't there be a system whereby contributions from community members are acknowledged and they get the game at a reduced price? In reality Blizzard are crowd sourcing game testers!!!
Haha don't kid yourself, Blizzard is still doing whatever the hell they want, they're just hand picking the community suggestions that go their way and communicating a lot better on the changes they are making.
Your proposal would just reward posters that were lucky to have the same idea david kim had
|
On July 14 2015 05:01 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 04:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On July 14 2015 04:39 MaestroMaus wrote:On July 14 2015 04:25 blae000 wrote:
I lose more and more interest for every post I read from blizz that does not include anything related to economy changes but does include "new ability".. Posts like this and other posts I read at the blizz forums with content such as: "toss still not fixed" "economy still not changed" "toss still not deleted" "terran still imba" "terran still M&M&M tier 1 bullshit" A. Isn't constructive. B. Adds to the toxic sphere right now in the community. C. Completely bypasses the fact that LOTV is still months away and might bring the change you want. D. Completely bypasses the fact that most of the people in this comment thread can't even play the beta yet and are either theory crafting or going by beta tournaments they saw on streams. Sure; your allowed to debate. Sure; you are allowed to voice your opinion. But at least be constructive and mature about it instead of throwing a tantrum that you aren't getting change x you want so badly. I agree with this, half of the economy and Protoss design whiners are all the same exact people posting the exact same thing on multiple threads, I question sometimes if these people even play the beta or if they just sit there and theory craft. By the way, for my constructive post on the matter 1. Zealot Legs at Twilight Council/Charge removed from game so Zealots can be fast and benefit from great control, Charge is stupid, A move, and to make Charge NOT stupid requires weird design changes, just be done with it, it sucks. 2. Adept shield upgrade changed to + dmg vs. armored or chain damage they are tanky enough they just get outclassed the further the game goes they need a little "bump" in the mid to late game. 3. Stalkers are awesome, don't touch them, anyone that says otherwise hasn't faced blink/sentry. Why don't people get this... YOU CANNOT REMOVE CHARGE AND KEEP CONCUSSIVE SHELLS. I'm all for faster Zealots that can be microed etc. but concussive shells flat out kill any micro potential.
I feel like Concussive Shells is a bandaid gone wrong anyway. In the early game it helps you survive, especially against gateway all-ins, because it allows you to micro more easily even against units that are faster than your own (pre stim and medivacs), while later on it just removes micro potential for the opponents (while yours is in tact through stim and medivacs) and often allows you to kill units for free.
|
On July 14 2015 05:18 PickyProtoss wrote:
Shouldn't there be a system whereby contributions from community members are acknowledged and they get the game at a reduced price? In reality Blizzard are crowd sourcing game testers!!!
lol get real
it's not like this is even unique to blizzard, this is the direction games are going. why do you think everything is early access on steam?
if you think it's unfair then don't play and everyone who wants to play can keep playing without you. simple
|
Generally I like the way this is going, most times there is an update it actually seems like the community is being listened to.
Blizzard has to stop talking about merging upgrade being a buff or a nerf, its not its just situational bullshit that makes strategies one dimenional. If merging upgrades is required to make mech viable that means that mech has to be air transition. Meanin all mech games will look exactly the same. Buff mech, not a certain specific transition. Because merging upgrades does NOT directly buff mech. How is a mech player only building thors, helions and tanks buffed by that? He isn't and therefore that style is unviable. Why, because blizz refuses to actually buff mech.
And I'm a zerg player and thinks mech is insanely frustrating as it is btw.
|
On July 14 2015 05:33 Shuffleblade wrote:
Generally I like the way this is going, most times there is an update it actually seems like the community is being listened to.
Blizzard has to stop talking about merging upgrade being a buff or a nerf, its not its just situational bullshit that makes strategies one dimenional. If merging upgrades is required to make mech viable that means that mech has to be air transition. Meanin all mech games will look exactly the same. Buff mech, not a certain specific transition. Because merging upgrades does NOT directly buff mech. How is a mech player only building thors, helions and tanks buffed by that? He isn't and therefore that style is unviable. Why, because blizz refuses to actually buff mech.
And I'm a zerg player and thinks mech is insanely frustrating as it is btw.
I think this time it is not to buff mech though, but to make the air units more viable.
Mech with the addition of Cyclones probably has all the tools to go very heavily factorybased all game long against Protoss and Zerg. But they think that air units are not going to be played if you need to upgrade them extra from scratch.
|
On July 14 2015 05:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2015 05:33 Shuffleblade wrote:
Generally I like the way this is going, most times there is an update it actually seems like the community is being listened to.
Blizzard has to stop talking about merging upgrade being a buff or a nerf, its not its just situational bullshit that makes strategies one dimenional. If merging upgrades is required to make mech viable that means that mech has to be air transition. Meanin all mech games will look exactly the same. Buff mech, not a certain specific transition. Because merging upgrades does NOT directly buff mech. How is a mech player only building thors, helions and tanks buffed by that? He isn't and therefore that style is unviable. Why, because blizz refuses to actually buff mech.
And I'm a zerg player and thinks mech is insanely frustrating as it is btw. I think this time it is not to buff mech though, but to make the air units more viable. Mech with the addition of Cyclones probably has all the tools to go very heavily factorybased all game long against Protoss and Zerg. But they think that air units are not going to be played if you need to upgrade them extra from scratch.
If you have insider information please share it because the reasoning they have been giving in every single update has been that they are considering doing it to buff mech, in this very post they post this:
"We felt the complete split in upgrade was too much of a nerf in terms of mech play, and wanted to go back a little bit. We chose to combine only the armor upgrades so that it helps full mech strategies out a bit more so than bio play supported by mech"
They felt the split was a "nerf" to mech, so they undo half the nerf to mech, effectively "buffing" it. If you have any other quote where they mention buffing air with this feel free to share it. (would be just as foolish though, if the air is weak buff the air not a transition so it might be used even though its weak.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
