Before we begin, we’d like to send a shout-out to the highest level pro-gamers out there in Korea who are always looking to find new strategies, counters to those strategies, and doing all they can to find solutions to obstacles within the game. It is both inspiring and admirable to see top end players who work through significant adversity to adapt and find new strategies and tactics. In many of the top-end pro-level HotS games this week, we saw lots of interesting counters to certain strategies that were seen as unbeatable, and it was awesome to be reminded that there are players out there who will explore things to find their own solutions rather than immediately jumping to extreme conclusions. Heart of the Swarm Mech/Swarm Host Balance Test Map We’ve seen your feedback regarding TvZ mech play, and we agree that certain mech games are dragging on too long. We’ve seen a lot of potential in this area as well, as some mech games have been packed with action. These have cultivated in unique max vs. max battles with heavy tech switches on the Zerg side.
With that said, we’re testing these Swarm Host changes:
Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3
Cost changed from 100/200 to 200/100
Locusts can fly without having the upgrade
Locust health down from 65 to 50
We believe this could be a good change that helps against Terran mech and against Protoss in a fun way. To reiterate, we don’t want to jump to conclusions and we don’t know if Zerg is underpowered against mech. With this test map, we can prepare a patch if that turns out to be the case. We’ll try to get the test map up next week.
Now, let’s talk about Legacy of the Void.
Protoss Feels “Gimmicky” Compared to Other Races Thank you for discussions in this area this week. The main points that could contribute to the “gimmicky” feelings point toward offensive warp-ins, which should be addressed with this week’s patch. So overall, this is potentially a non-issue if testing goes smoothly with the new changes.
We didn’t quite agree with some of the other main arguments in this area. We feel that the consequences of not scouting if the opponent is going for Oracles or a Dark Shrine is just StarCraft II, not a case of Protoss being gimmicky. For example, if I’m going mech and I don’t scout that the opponent is going fast Spire, I could be at a huge disadvantage because my AA isn’t out yet. The same goes for things like proxy cloaked Banshee, Baneling bust, or any strategy any race can do that requires scouting and reacting. Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
Our goal is to give players plenty of strategically viable openers in Void in order to have more action throughout the course of the game. That’s why we’re adding tools to other races, including individual Overlord transport, Liberator harassment, Nydus changes, Siege Tank Siege Mode drops, and so on.
With that said, more options aren’t always better. If a race just has so many options that they can’t be effectively scouted, we would obviously look into ways to either increase scouting capabilities for the other races, or reduce some options on a race. We will definitely need to do a pass at this before the game launch, so please remember to not be too quick to judge. Previous experience has shown that learning to defend something takes more time than going on the offensive with new tools.
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
It’s one of the main reasons why we’re communicating with you more than ever before—it’s unproductive to focus on preconceived notions while not paying attention to the actual state of the game.
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides. For example:
How many Pylons need to be overcharged? How many and what type of Pylon building placement is optimal in case Overcharge needs to be used? Do you avoid their firing radius, kill the Pylon, or run away?
We haven’t been too focused on this change recently, but we will continue testing and hopefully make a call before the next balance update.
Colossus We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
Adept We agree that early game Adepts can be a bit too powerful, and we would like to see a greater variety in Protoss army compositions. We have been trying various suggestions internally, and are leaning towards changing their cost from 100/25 to 75/50. This will slow down how many Adepts can be massed early on, and in the later stages of the game, it’ll be more of a commitment when going heavy Adepts. Another benefit that we’re seeing in the late game is that the army composition becomes more diverse due to the minerals-to-gas ratio. We will continue reviewing this internally and hopefully get it out to the beta if testing continues to go well.
Carrier Interceptor Behavior We’d like to thank you for your suggestions in this area. Based on your feedback, we’ve been exploring a change to issuing orders to the Interceptor. Even when Interceptors are starting to return to the Carrier, it is now possible to issue a new order to have them instantly attack another target without having to first return to the Carrier. We’ve put this change in this week’s balance patch.
Immortal We agree with your feedback in that the new ability is quite difficult to use for a majority of players, and this ability might only impact the highest-level of players out there. Therefore, we’ve been trying out having the ability auto-cast by default. We’re noticing that this change is allowing Protoss to be able to focus on the more important parts of engagements, while Immortals continue to function at a high efficiency. At the same time, in order to use the ability for maximum efficiency, the highest-level players who have the extra micro to spare should turn this off. Thank you for this suggestion, and we will continue testing this change internally before making the call to have it go out to the beta.
Ravager Upgrade We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank and entice Terran players to use different unit compositions depending on how the Zerg is playing. For example, if Zerg is going heavy Hydra/Lurkers, units like Liberators or Siege Tanks would be stronger, whereas if Zerg is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Siege Tanks or Liberators might not be as strong as other units such as Cyclones or speed-upgraded Banshees. Further Learnings From Internal Testing Finally, we’d like to talk about a couple major changes suggested by our community that didn’t quite turn out to have as positive of an effect as we had hoped. We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
Introducing auto-build on units
This changed up the game to such a great degree that the game didn’t feel like StarCraft II anymore. It also wasn’t as simple as it sounds. New issues kept popping up, including difficulties expanding or saving up resources, since float was automatically being spent.
Even though we won’t be testing either of these changes in the beta, we wanted to get our results out to you for better communication. Thank you for your continued support during the beta, and please remember that while discussions are important, actually playtesting the beta is critical to the success of Legacy of the Void. Please check out the major changes that went into this week’s patch in actual games, and continue giving us your feedback. We appreciate all the effort you’re putting into making this the best version of StarCraft II yet.
Not that I'm advocating for this, but a solution to auto build that would feel pretty good is to just not charge for the cost of a unit if it is queued, and only doing so once it starts being produced.
It's disappointing that they think having fewer workers at a base makes it less worthwhile to harass, and yet encourage having bases with only half as many workers on them. I would be willing to increase worker build time if it meant gaining a mining efficiency curve. Or even better reverting the 60% mineral patches that they currently use to full mineral patches.
On August 22 2015 03:03 Lunareste wrote: Please just delete the fucking Colossus already.
Yea pretty much my sentiments exactly, the Colossus is a no skill a move unit and the only people that want it back are Protoss players who miss A moving deathballs, because that's exactly what the Colossus is, an a move deathball unit that can't function outside of a deathball.
Remove the damn unit and buff Protoss accordingly.
I'm also very concerned about Overlord drops to make ZvZ less of a complete gimmick and change the starting number of workers down to 10 to allow some type of breathing room in the early game.
This update kind of feels like a step backwards to cater to baddies, the Colossus has zero place in the new Protoss army, it's too slow, too a move, too deathball.
Edit: Also, get Photon Overcharge out of here, replace with shield battery (or something else awesome that isn't PO pleeaase lol) Also WTF is with Immortals? Is it a bug or some shit? They look like little nubs in the ground rofl
Didn't mention any of the macro feedback. Im pretty sure everyone has questioned the decision on that one? Oh well at least they are talking and reaching out which makes everyone feel like they are apart of the process which is nice.
On August 22 2015 03:06 linuxguru1 wrote: There are some good ideas in there, but please don't pursue auto-building units...
It says in the post that they tried it and determined it made the game too different.
I really like their explanations for everything. I'm still not entirely sold on the concept of photon overcharge in general, but their proposed change for it definitely makes the ability more interesting and skillful to use, and seems like it could promote more dynamic gameplay.
Thank you for discussions in this area this week. The main points that could contribute to the “gimmicky” feelings point toward offensive warp-ins, which should be addressed with this week’s patch. So overall, this is potentially a non-issue if testing goes smoothly with the new changes.
Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons
haha, so hilarious to read this.
And their explanation for the less worker per base makes no sense to me. You will still kill a tons of worker with harass if there isn't any defense in place and if you wipe out a mineral line the impact will still be important, even if it takes less longer to replenish it.
And reading their explanation for auto-building units makes me wonder what they consider as their "community" and the line about not looking like starcraft considering the auto inject is pretty funny too.
Notice how they didn't even tried to make it look like they actually playtest DH or other economic model actually pushed by the community.
Time to ditch Terran and pick up P or (especially) Z. Does Kimbo not realise that T cannot proactively tech switch to counter Zerg compositions because it takes a fucking long time to do build a new composition and they will likely have no upgrades. Siege tanks have received nothing but nerf after nerf since the WoL Beta.
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides. For example:
How many Pylons need to be overcharged? How many and what type of Pylon building placement is optimal in case Overcharge needs to be used? Do you avoid their firing radius, kill the Pylon, or run away?
We haven’t been too focused on this change recently, but we will continue testing and hopefully make a call before the next balance update.
Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING.
Colossus We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
Nobody likes how the colossus works, buffing it again is ridiculous. Just remove it from the game OR redesign it completely.
Immortal We agree with your feedback in that the new ability is quite difficult to use for a majority of players, and this ability might only impact the highest-level of players out there. Therefore, we’ve been trying out having the ability auto-cast by default. We’re noticing that this change is allowing Protoss to be able to focus on the more important parts of engagements, while Immortals continue to function at a high efficiency. At the same time, in order to use the ability for maximum efficiency, the highest-level players who have the extra micro to spare should turn this off. Thank you for this suggestion, and we will continue testing this change internally before making the call to have it go out to the beta.
The problem is that this "micro" ability is just boring. Activating an ability isn't exciting, stimming marines is boring, what you can do with stimmed marines is the exciting gameplay part. Same should be true for every activated ability.
The economy part makes me just sad, well overal very disappointed with the update
Ravagers already delt with siege tanks well when they flanked or waited until roaches tanked damage. I don't know why they are trying to nerf siege tanks even more-its not that great at state right now and needs lots of support like liberator hellbat and cyclone to make it work and they are looking to reduce it even further
Why do they even need PO anymore? Just insta-warp in units and defend. I attack you early with marines, warp one or two adepts in and kill them all. It is a no-skill action.
And were we complaining that Carriers were somehow underpowered? I only hope that the Protoss noobs who like to mass carrier are so inept that they cannot use this ability.
Trying Zerg this weekend - without the boring inject mechanism it may be quite interesting.
Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
wtf they actually thought auto-building units was an idea worth testing? and using immortal ability was kinda hard, so they just auto that too? okie dokie, thats what I took from this
Please don´t introduce the colossi again. As a former Protoss, this unit is horrible and not fun at all. Just don´t. As somebody mentioned before, i totally agree that the current design of photon overcharge as well as the change suggestion is not cool. Yeah Protoss needs something early on to defend properly, but don´t let it be a rightclick ability with little micro. Also i do not like the autodefault cast on immortal. Spells like this feel cluster and not elegant way of dealing with a problem.
autocast on the immortal spell? auto build units? damn pls rename the game if you want to dumb it down so much. Don't violate the good reputation of Starcraft!
I really like the thought of photon overcharge on pylons, that makes it so its a lot more decision making on both sides and photon overcharge isn't totally uncounterable anymore. Maybe early pressure will be viable against P again. I also think there could be cool situations where you can photon overcharge aggresively, could be awesome, could be unbalanced (in which case things could be tweaked) but I absolutely love the idea. I presume no photon overcharge on warp prism? Being able to use in on one when its in "pylon mode" could be interesting but it should definitely not be shooting if the pylon mode gets cancelled.
I think the 13 range Ravager is going to be way too powerful. Even currently they do solid vs mech, and they already have Vipers which are extremely powerful vs all mech to begin with. Hopefully this doesn't make it in.
I like about 50% of what they say, and I hate the other stuff. I hate the macro mechanics removal too... I just don't know if I'll have it in my to keep going.
On August 22 2015 03:55 IceBerrY wrote: Please don´t introduce the colossi again. As a former Protoss, this unit is horrible and not fun at all. Just don´t. As somebody mentioned before, i totally agree that the current design of photon overcharge as well as the change suggestion is not cool. Yeah Protoss needs something early on to defend properly, but don´t let it be a rightclick ability with little micro. Also i do not like the autodefault cast on immortal. Spells like this feel cluster and not elegant way of dealing with a problem.
Colossus are a possible solution to fight lurkers without having to go air.
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Lately DK is going full retard. removing macro mechanics, making everything easier, the terrible and unelegant warpin change, rebuffing the collossus... I had so much hope for LotV but with every community update I'm getting more and more disappointed. Why do you design such a phenomenal game like sc2 only to destroy it with its expansion???
He always says "we listened carefully to your feedback and pls continue giving it" but none of their changes give me the feeling they give any fuck about what the community thinks. Just huge PR bullshit.
On August 22 2015 04:01 Charoisaur wrote: Lately DK is going full retard. removing macro mechanics, making everything easier, the terrible and unelegant warpin change, rebuffing the collossus... I had so much hope for LotV but with every community update I'm getting more and more disappointed. Why do you design such a phenomenal game like sc2 only to destroy it with its expansion???
Thing is the people who loved mechanics and being rewarded for good mechanics and macro all left or just gave up years ago. Today, at least half the posts are hardcore supporting the whole "battles and action everywhere all the time", so they just base the game around that instead. I hate it lol
Finally carriers are buffed. More seriously, I like the update. A lot.
About this:
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
I would like to tell David Kim that I think there is a difference between "being able to deal with something" and something not causing huge problems to begin with while being viable. He keeps on saying how he wants lots of viable openings and strategies in the game, however, it is ok when an opponent's strategy forces you into one and only one specific reaction?! I think that's the root of a lot of complaints. Cool story that I can defend a ling drop or baneling allin when going hellions blindly every game since 2011... but yeah, then I'm going hellions blindly every game and that's it with the various openings.
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right?
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
Not everyone who likes the importance of mechanics has to be a BW fan. I personally never played BW. But if I want a game where all the macro is done by the AI and I only have to control units I play a MOBA. Mechanics are a fundamental part of RTS games and shouldn't be removed.
Going to StarBow, oh StarBow people said "We depend on the success (not) of LotV to get more players" I think they are going to enjoy this new patches lol
1 month playing with this until next patch where they are going to keep the Mother Core and even Pylon Push me on early game with Adepts as well? LOLOLOL
Also, instead re-designing the Collosi, they keep it as it is? Seriously? I mean... "Oh well, you have a DeathBall... throwing lasers and such, we tried to remove it but meh, it is fun, so we are keeping the old DeathBall as well a new unit who throw... more energy balls!!!!!!"
I am done with this game, this will be the last weekend I try it, watching streams and learning what I can. If I still feel it is absurd, I will move again to StarBow, period.
On August 22 2015 04:21 Sogetsu wrote: Going to StarBow, oh StarBow people said "We depend on the success (not) of LotV to get more players" I think they are going to enjoy this new patches lol
1 month playing with this until next patch where they are going to keep the Mother Core and even Pylon Push me on early game with Adepts as well? LOLOLOL
Also, instead re-designing the Collosi, they keep it as it is? Seriously? I mean... "Oh well, you have a DeathBall... throwing lasers and such, we tried to remove it but meh, it is fun, so we are keeping the old DeathBall as well a new unit who throw... more energy balls!!!!!!"
I am done with this game, this will be the last weekend I try it, watching streams and learning what I can. If I still feel it is absurd, I will move again to StarBow, period.
I will still wait for the final version of LotV until I decide if I play it or not but the current direction is very worrisome.
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right?
I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives.
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right?
I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives.
An idea that was apparently more worthy of test time than double harvest tells a lot about their intentions for legacy
Poll: With the recent LotV changes and direction do you intend to
Enjoy it, it is fresh and new. (51)
51%
Stay on HotS for as long as possible. (22)
22%
Switch to another game completely. (9)
9%
Put up with it, it is still the best RTS despite the flaws. (9)
9%
Switch to Starbow. (7)
7%
Stop playing, just watch. (2)
2%
100 total votes
Your vote: With the recent LotV changes and direction do you intend to
(Vote): Enjoy it, it is fresh and new. (Vote): Stay on HotS for as long as possible. (Vote): Switch to Starbow. (Vote): Switch to another game completely. (Vote): Stop playing, just watch. (Vote): Put up with it, it is still the best RTS despite the flaws.
On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote: I liked all these changes until I reached the end.
Introducing auto-build on units
Eeeeeek. No thanks.
You realize they said they're not planning to use that change?
We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in.
No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right?
I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives.
An idea that was apparently more worthy of test time than double harvest tells a lot about their intentions for legacy
This is literally right above the section on automated unit building.
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
Reduced efficiency for every worker after the first. That is literally what double harvest aims at. Say what you want about their reasoning and whether or not they have "considered it enough", but there is the feedback you are looking for.
Their feedback on economy is just terrible though. Sure, worker harass is nice to watch, but this
With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
It only means that the game doesn't snowball as hard, which is a good thing and not a bad one.
What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void
Wow expanding faster is better than not (if you can defend it)? The same is true for HOTS as well. The point is that you don't get more income, in the end the whole game is balanced around ressource efficiency which is bad cause it leads to less engagements, less styles of play and more snowbally gameplay.
As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
So they want more volatile gameplay, ok. I don't like it
This changed up the game to such a great degree that the game didn’t feel like StarCraft II anymore. It also wasn’t as simple as it sounds. New issues kept popping up, including difficulties expanding or saving up resources, since float was automatically being spent.
Now I don't really post anymore on tl and mainly just lurk around nowadays and play the beta, but this made me spill my drink. Who the hell was suggesting that? I already hate auto anything that is in the game, but completely removing macro by adding this would dumb this game down beyond any redemption. I get that moba's are the hot shit nowadays, but not every game has to be pure micro. They should honestly just give people their beloved warcraft 4 so they can have their micro based rts, for all I care even with auto-build, but just leave starcraft be. It has always been a mix of macro/micro and should stay that way.
As for the rest: Yay on the carrier thing, though they should remove the ability they added. The interceptors even stay in that area when the carrier dies, which is so counter-intuitive. Beating carriers should always be about target firing the carriers, not having the protoss force you to deal with the interceptors and you getting punished for focusing the carriers. I'd say giving them the same microability as bw + the reduction in build time should be enough to make them viable. I also really hope that they don't add autocast to the immortal ability, as it now adds more ways for a better player to differentiate himself from a lesser player. Immortals already don't offer many micro possibilities besides kiting, target firing and moving weakened once back, so I felt like this ability added some much needed depth to the unit. Also just remove colossi, they limit air design, turn late-game pvp into war of the worlds and force your opponent to build counters that are only good vs colossi. Disrupters fill a similar role and with their new redesign offer interesting micro and counter-micro options for both players. No need for colossi to be in this game. And for the love of god just remove inject from the game and adjust hatcheries accordingly, auto-cast inject is absolutely pointless. Photon overcharge change sounds nice, though why not bring mana back to the nexus and allow you to cast it on pylons close to the nexus, that way it won't be abused for allins and you can remove the mothership core from the game, this is not a game of hero units and protoss shouldn't be the only race that has one. You could also add recall to nexi for 100 mana. Timewarp could replace forcefields (though obviously change it to the size of a forcefield).
Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING.
The problem is that it prevents both harass and timing attacks with no counterplay. As a terran player I couldn't care less about how difficult it is for the protoss player to execute something. I just want to be able to attack/harass the opponent in some type of way and Photon Overcharge often prevents that (though you can kinda circumvent it with overpowered harass options too an extent).
Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING.
The problem is that it prevents both harass and timing attacks with no counterplay. As a terran player I couldn't care less about how difficult it is for the protoss player to execute something. I just want to be able to attack/harass the opponent in some type of way and Photon Overcharge often prevents that (though you can kinda circumvent it with overpowered harass options too an extent).
Well both. If you actually have to execute your defence with actual unit micro there is potential to outplay the enemy with superior micro. The photon overcharge doesn't allow this, a platinum photon overcharge defence looks pretty much the same as a gm photon overcharge defence, which is bad. The rest is just balance which can be adjusted.
with the new photon overcharge, early "pylon cannon" pushes might even be an option. sounds like a cool thing to me if balanced right.
having been very sceptical at the beginning of these community updates, i'm more and more impressed with blizzard. they're actually trying out stuff and risking something. people should appreciate this more, hey even i can do it.
Swarm host change : who cares, HotS is gone in three months and it's fun to see Korean Zergs trying to find ways to beat mech. And any sentence including "swarm host" and "helping Zerg in a fun way" doesn't sound right to me.
"Gimmicks" : if you want players to feel less frustrated because of things they could have countered if they had seen it but wish to have a lot of agressive options, you'll have to improve scouting tools. It's already done for Terrans who can now use a lot of scans early game to figure out what's going on in conjuction with their reapers, but we need improved overlord speed and 75 energy hallucinations too. Worker scout only gets you that far. Oh, and 4 players maps with more than 2 possible spawns for the opponent NEED TO GO. At last. Good riddance. Same for random ; the race you get should be displayed on the loading screen for both players, it's long overdue.
Colossi : a step in the right direction. Colossi need not be removed from the game, just to play a less important role. I still think keeping both nerfs but reducing the price was a better move.
Mothership Core change : no thanks, this change is totally silly.
Too powerful adepts : at least you're not blind... I'm unsure about the solution you give. Twilight requirement would do a far better job IMO.
Carrier behavior : remove the release interceptors retardedness and we can begin to talk.
Immortal ability autocast : you know, why not make it... a passive ability ? Just like it was before ? First hit taken launches the reinforced shield. Don't make everything autocast, you're going to offer us auto split on marines if we're not keeping you tame.
Ravager upgrade : why not.
And while I'm at it : your warp-in change is stupid, split energy and warp-in power please.
I am liking most of the suggested unit changes here. I still feel that they are not really getting why we are asking for mining revamps, but honestly at this point I don't care anymore.
Also, regarding the disruptor...Maybe they could add something where you have to spend a few minerals before you can discharge one of those little damaging ball things. And then, since it is too difficult to control in combat, make it seek out targets on its own. Maybe allow it to store a few charges over time or something like that.
"we don’t want to jump to conclusions and we don’t know if Zerg is underpowered against mech".
Is what?, what?, zerg expends 4x or 5x times the bank of terran at late game,and not even winning, but they are not sure if zerg is underpowered, unbelieveble.
i actually think the HOTS SH price change could end up making nexus snipe builds more viable considering it's very easy for zerg to bank minerals in the midgame and the lower gas/supply investment gives you a lot more room to transition into a strong ground army, kind of like the style where you go spire and only 6-8 mutas to kill probes with a hard hydra followup to defend counterattacks. except you can kill a nexus and the locusts actually add dps against the counter if cooldown comes off in time. not to mention not having to research flying locusts to hit a main or natural exposed by cliffs
They should make collosi interesting before buffing them. Back to A-move won't be fun.
Carrier needs a lot of changes. Personally I would redesign all air-centric armies, but carrier and BL/something are just broken and not fun. We need more ground AA units or weaker air units when engaged head on.
Ravager is interesting, but they should design mech properly first. The last cyclone patch is a miss.
SH-HotS change - couple of months late and still a wrong unit to change.
On August 22 2015 05:23 Tuczniak wrote: They should make collosi interesting before buffing them. Back to A-move won't be fun.
Carrier needs a lot of changes. Personally I would redesign all air-centric armies, but carrier and BL/something are just broken and not fun. We need more ground AA units or weaker air units when engaged head on.
Ravager is interesting, but they should design mech properly first. The last cyclone patch is a miss.
SH-HotS change - couple of months late and still a wrong unit to change.
i wonder if it would be feasible codewise to make thermal lance range come built-in but only trigger when target fired. that could be kind of interesting
If the immortal get an ability and its on autocast and you have no reason what so ever to turn it off, then why make it an ability instead of making it part of the units mechanic itself. That's the way it is in LoTV and I still like the unit. Lots of units that become autocast are never not autocasted. For instance, I've never seen it pointed out that a pro disabled medivac auto cast. Cause I'm lazy, I personally will never turn autocast of on the queen and it same would happen with the immortal. Autorepair in wol is the only thing I managed otherwise minerals would just evaporate at times lol.
Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING.
The problem is that it prevents both harass and timing attacks with no counterplay. As a terran player I couldn't care less about how difficult it is for the protoss player to execute something. I just want to be able to attack/harass the opponent in some type of way and Photon Overcharge often prevents that (though you can kinda circumvent it with overpowered harass options too an extent).
Well both. If you actually have to execute your defence with actual unit micro there is potential to outplay the enemy with superior micro. The photon overcharge doesn't allow this, a platinum photon overcharge defence looks pretty much the same as a gm photon overcharge defence, which is bad. The rest is just balance which can be adjusted.
Agree, though I do think having a defenders advantage is important as it allows protoss to tech/expand faster and thus opens up for more build order diversity. However, the way it accomplishes this is in a very unhealthy way. With the 2-second defensive warp in + Adepts in LOL, I think Photon Overcharge should be absolutely useless vs small armies and only be useful to beat/hold back a larger army going for a timing attack/all-in.
I think it's really bizarre to have both Colossus and Disruptors as options.
I once again suggest that the Colossus should be slower. That would differentiate its use from the Disruptor significantly if the Disruptor was the more scrappy, more mobile option.
On August 22 2015 05:21 FaiFai wrote: The only thing i have to add to that statement :
"we don’t want to jump to conclusions and we don’t know if Zerg is underpowered against mech".
Is what?, what?, zerg expends 4x or 5x times the bank of terran at late game,and not even winning, but they are not sure if zerg is underpowered, unbelieveble.
You are surprised that the people who let BL/Infestor reign supreme for 9 months is not sure that Mech is too strong against Zerg after a couple of months?? Give it another 7 months and they may come to a conclusion.
I was OK with the disruptor because it replaced a stupid unit (Colossus) but now they get both??
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
I liked that time when they said they wanted to make the game the best it could be, popularity coming second, then what they did was try as hard as possible to make SC2 into LOL so they can get more players. For the avoidance of doubt, this time is that time.
On August 22 2015 05:51 Haighstrom wrote: I liked that time when they said they wanted to make the game the best it could be, popularity coming second, then what they did was try as hard as possible to make SC2 into LOL so they can get more players. For the avoidance of doubt, this time is that time.
And still it won't be good lol For that reason we got Heroes. If I want to play something simil to LoL I play Heroes and that's all, but if I want to play SC2 I need to move to StarBow now or stick to HotS/WoL
On August 22 2015 05:31 BisuDagger wrote: If the immortal get an ability and its on autocast and you have no reason what so ever to turn it off, then why make it an ability instead of making it part of the units mechanic itself. That's the way it is in LoTV and I still like the unit. Lots of units that become autocast are never not autocasted. For instance, I've never seen it pointed out that a pro disabled medivac auto cast. Cause I'm lazy, I personally will never turn autocast of on the queen and it same would happen with the immortal. Autorepair in wol is the only thing I managed otherwise minerals would just evaporate at times lol.
I think it's more a case where there's no reason to ever turn the autocast ability on. It just opens you up to someone baiting out the time-limited shield with a marine/stalker/whatever shot and then retreating for literally 3 seconds until the ability wears off.
People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
We agree with your feedback in that the new ability is quite difficult to use for a majority of players, and this ability might only impact the highest-level of players out there. Therefore, we’ve been trying out having the ability auto-cast by default. We’re noticing that this change is allowing Protoss to be able to focus on the more important parts of engagements, while Immortals continue to function at a high efficiency. At the same time, in order to use the ability for maximum efficiency, the highest-level players who have the extra micro to spare should turn this off. Thank you for this suggestion, and we will continue testing this change internally before making the call to have it go out to the beta.
Make it autocast off by default, but autocastable - or just add an option for either way. Having it automatically be one way on every immortal spawn so that you have to change mode every time you finish one on every single immortal will be bad/annoying
On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote: People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
We agree with your feedback in that the new ability is quite difficult to use for a majority of players, and this ability might only impact the highest-level of players out there. Therefore, we’ve been trying out having the ability auto-cast by default. We’re noticing that this change is allowing Protoss to be able to focus on the more important parts of engagements, while Immortals continue to function at a high efficiency. At the same time, in order to use the ability for maximum efficiency, the highest-level players who have the extra micro to spare should turn this off. Thank you for this suggestion, and we will continue testing this change internally before making the call to have it go out to the beta.
Make it autocast off by default, but autocastable - or just add an option for either way. Having it automatically be one way on every immortal spawn so that you have to change mode every time you finish one on every single immortal will be bad/annoying
On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote: People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
I think it would be cool if the autocast wouldn't be possible to turn off and the trigger condition was just the first time the immortal takes damage. Good opponents can try to trigger it pre-engagment and then focus something else until the barrier is gone. Good Protoss can pick it up, micro it back or snipe opponents that try to trigger it pre-engagment. Weak players simply don't have to deal with it, but the condition might not be the most optimal to begin with.
And adjust the cooldown to be a little more frequent in that scenario.
Gosh, it's like their internal testing runs on a completely different planet in regards to economy changes. It's so weird that someone so smart can be so blatantly incorrect in all his statements regarding the economy.
We agree with your feedback in that the new ability is quite difficult to use for a majority of players, and this ability might only impact the highest-level of players out there. Therefore, we’ve been trying out having the ability auto-cast by default. We’re noticing that this change is allowing Protoss to be able to focus on the more important parts of engagements, while Immortals continue to function at a high efficiency. At the same time, in order to use the ability for maximum efficiency, the highest-level players who have the extra micro to spare should turn this off. Thank you for this suggestion, and we will continue testing this change internally before making the call to have it go out to the beta.
Make it autocast off by default, but autocastable - or just add an option for either way. Having it automatically be one way on every immortal spawn so that you have to change mode every time you finish one on every single immortal will be bad/annoying
On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote: People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
I think it would be cool if the autocast wouldn't be possible to turn off and the trigger condition was just the first time the immortal takes damage. Good opponents can try to trigger it pre-engagment and then focus something else until the barrier is gone. Good Protoss can pick it up, micro it back or snipe opponents that try to trigger it pre-engagment. Weak players simply don't have to deal with it, but the condition might not be the most optimal to begin with.
And adjust the cooldown to be a little more frequent in that scenario.
That would also be cool, but it hurts when the "optimal" way to play is to constantly fight to turn off autocast
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
nah, see here's the build. you get a warp prism, ferry the probe in. and get set up in a dark corner of their base, then watch everything go to shit.
as if the 2s warped in zealots with 30 charge dmg weren't enough, lets give them the ability to fall back to an overcharged pylon so you can't retaliate :D
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
nah, see here's the build. you get a warp prism, ferry the probe in. and get set up in a dark corner of their base, then watch everything go to shit.
as if the 2s warped in zealots with 30 charge dmg weren't enough, lets give them the ability to fall back to an overcharged pylon so you can't retaliate :D
Warp prism is the most OP thing you can get for 200 minerals in the current build. By far.
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
nah, see here's the build. you get a warp prism, ferry the probe in. and get set up in a dark corner of their base, then watch everything go to shit.
as if the 2s warped in zealots with 30 charge dmg weren't enough, lets give them the ability to fall back to an overcharged pylon so you can't retaliate :D
Warp prism is the most OP thing you can get for 200 minerals in the current build. By far.
and the robo bay is a natural follow up for disruptors too, so its common to see them with speed. glhf leaving your base :D
I still don't see how 2 second warp ins are "OP" when it only matters on the first warp in... every warp in after the first warp in when Warp Gate finishes is still limited by unit cooldown. It taking 2 seconds instead of 5 seconds is relatively small.
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
To be honest for warp ins stuff you can use a proxy gate but not the in your face one you'll need for a reduced range overcharge.
On August 22 2015 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote: I still don't see how 2 second warp ins are "OP" when it only matters on the first warp in... every warp in after the first warp in when Warp Gate finishes is still limited by unit cooldown. It taking 2 seconds instead of 5 seconds is relatively small.
You're limited by unit cooldown for HOW MUCH army you can make - but no matter what you make, if it's on the enemy side of the map it'll take about 80% of a marine production cycle longer. No matter if it's 1 production cycle or zealots or 5, delay is the same
also they're unable to defend themselves while warping in for literally 15 real seconds.
2 second warp in is more that you can warp under enemies that are dropping and such in your real base, while in WOL/HOTS they'd just kill your half warped in units and continue killing your base now that you can't warp anything else in. With warp in duration halved for nexus and warpgate pylons, you can blap 10 units out of nowhere before anyone can respond
On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: We didn’t quite agree with some of the other main arguments in this area. We feel that the consequences of not scouting if the opponent is going for Oracles or a Dark Shrine is just StarCraft II, not a case of Protoss being gimmicky. For example, if I’m going mech and I don’t scout that the opponent is going fast Spire, I could be at a huge disadvantage because my AA isn’t out yet. The same goes for things like proxy cloaked Banshee, Baneling bust, or any strategy any race can do that requires scouting and reacting. Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
Is anyone else really concerned about this? Scouting is already, in my estimation, way too important in SC2, and I'm not sure how they can increase its importance without turning the game into rock-paper-scissors. It's already bad that scouting in SC2 is limited to direct observation - in other words, you need to actually see the tech building to counter it. You can't just scout their base and see that something is missing, and know that your opponent is Up To Something; there are just too many things they could be doing for that to be enough information. What's worse is that if you miss a scout you're almost always punished by immediately losing the game or taking so much damage that the game is effectively lost.
The times when people don't scout what's coming and still manage to pull themselves out of it are extremely rare and usually the result of one or more lucky guesses. It's just extremely punishing, especially to new players, but also to pros, and it reduces the watchability of SC2 as an eSport because of the large number of non-games that occur when a scout gets missed. And it's not like scouting is easy - tech and structures can be hidden all over the map, and top level Korean pros regularly fail to scout things still despite trying. I'm not saying failure to scout shouldn't cause disadvantage, but I think losing the game is far too large of one. We wouldn't tolerate it if failure to inject or chrono-boost on time caused an instant loss. Instead, when you fail to execute a macro mechanic you get a small disadvantage and repeated failure builds up into a large and eventually game-losing disadvantage. Why should scouting be any different?
On August 22 2015 03:49 IeZaeL wrote: Just throwing out this idea, following the proposed Photon overcharge change : instead of giving the pylon an attack for a limited amount of time , make the energy field of that pylon regenerate shield at a much faster rate ( similar to the burrowed roach regen ) for a short amount of time. That would both synergize pretty well with every protoss unit and change in lotv, give a different kind of defense advantage, and make the shield battery lovers happy.
defender advantage which main use is probably gonna be for all ins. Giving an ability on a pylon will just promote more all ins.
Exactly. I don't get how they can learn so little from their previous mistakes. Overcharged pylons, whatever the effect is, won't be used in a respectful and defensive way, but in a "in your face" and "fuck you I love Protoss bullshit" way. Don't even consider such changes.
It would be quite easy to require a gateway/nexus powered pylon, wouldn't it? That would probably stop most abuse?
I'm already waiting for proxy gateways to become a thing with the current warp-in change... I learnt that every defensive tool can be turned into an offensive tool with a sufficiently twisted mind.
nah, see here's the build. you get a warp prism, ferry the probe in. and get set up in a dark corner of their base, then watch everything go to shit.
as if the 2s warped in zealots with 30 charge dmg weren't enough, lets give them the ability to fall back to an overcharged pylon so you can't retaliate :D
Warp prism is the most OP thing you can get for 200 minerals in the current build. By far.
Tvp atm is completely unplayable. Protoss simply outproduces terran by a wide margin and any type of abuseage of the warp prism leads terran at no chance.
Pls don't ever buff Colossi back to its current stat in HotS. Protoss don't fucking need 3 AoE units. And for fuck sake Siege tank doesn't need another counter.
Pls don't ever buff Colossi back to its current stat in HotS
It does like 20% less damage than HOTS still.. It was irrelevent at range 8. Either buff it or just remove it and balance game around stronger gateway units, templar and reavers
To people taking Planetary at their natural: Stop it. It's beyond retarded. First of its not gonna help you stop a warp prism all in. Secondly and more importantly, you will lack scan late game and I assume you are not gonna get OC at 3rd/4th.
Also remember that you are investing a lot of ressources into planetary. It costs more than OC and you can still use OC for supply calldowns in the early game (or just keep it at cc for a while).
Hey so... does Blizzard somehow not realize that auto build units were sarcastic jabs at the auto cast larva? Blizzard actually internally tested this? I've never been so frightened for the future of this game.
We want the mothership core removed, not buffed.
The siege tank absolutely does not need more counters. 13 range ravager is a terrible idea.
Almost all the posts about this were sarcastic in response to the concept of auto inject. Someone in the feedback chain made a mistake.
that would be so priceless, if they took sarcasm seriously
it just shows they recognize the game should be better at this point, and they are willing to test pretty much anything; now is probably the best time to come up with radical ideas
also, they mentioned in this update a shoutout to koreans who dont complain but rather find solutions; if the koreans are so creative, maybe they should contact the top teamhouses and gather a bunch of input and test it, and be more selective with reddit
On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
This is a concerning point of view to have. Yes scouting should be important, but losing because you couldn't scout what your opponent is doing is stupid. I mean, you scout your opponent last on a 4 player map - should you lose for that? Starcraft 2 is too complex and interesting a game for it to be decided by random chance, depending on what build orders people use.
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
While this is true for players, it's also true for developers.
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides.
The offensive use of overcharge might be interesting...
Colossus We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
The range is but one of many things that can be changed on the colossus. Please don't focus only on one area. How about a movement speed change? How about a rate of fire change? How about changing the build time? Seems like they don't know what they're trying to do with this unit.
Adept We agree that early game Adepts can be a bit too powerful, and we would like to see a greater variety in Protoss army compositions. We have been trying various suggestions internally, and are leaning towards changing their cost from 100/25 to 75/50. This will slow down how many Adepts can be massed early on, and in the later stages of the game, it’ll be more of a commitment when going heavy Adepts. Another benefit that we’re seeing in the late game is that the army composition becomes more diverse due to the minerals-to-gas ratio. We will continue reviewing this internally and hopefully get it out to the beta if testing continues to go well.
Adepts are too tough. Zealots are the tanking unit for protoss (which is why they feel like they've lost their role). Adepts should be much weaker, but do more damage. Zealots can tank, sentries can protect. If you want more tanking, build zealots. If you want more protection, build sentries. If you want more damage, build adepts.
Ravager Upgrade We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank and entice Terran players to use different unit compositions depending on how the Zerg is playing. For example, if Zerg is going heavy Hydra/Lurkers, units like Liberators or Siege Tanks would be stronger, whereas if Zerg is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Siege Tanks or Liberators might not be as strong as other units such as Cyclones or speed-upgraded Banshees.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
Further Learnings From Internal Testing
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
Also, how does having more workers make losing workers more meaningful? If you have 60 workers and lose 5, isn't that less of a big deal than if you have 40 and you lose 5? The less workers you have, the larger percentage of your income you lose when one dies. If they still want to make losing workers more "meaningful", they can make them take longer to build, but I don't see this as a problem and don't understand their logic.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
What people don't like is that you are forced to expand in LotV, rather than it being an optional strategy. What you are essentially saying is that you agree that reducing the efficiency of workers will bring about the result you want, but you won't do it because you've come up with another way to do it (that nobody seems to like). How about you try reducing mining efficiency and revert mineral patches back to how they are in HotS?
"Our goal is to give players plenty of strategically viable openers in Void in order to have more action throughout the course of the game."
That's why we increased the starting worker count from 6 to get rid of all of those strategically viable openers in Swarm.
And who the fuck wants swarm host to be different in HotS? There's already a solution that works perfectly fine in LotV and that's splitting upgrades and parasitic bomb. Why continue to retweak the swarm host? The solution to the swarm host in HotS was to simply put in the SH from LotV, so why can't the solution to ZvMech be implement the solutions from Lotv? It just seems ridiculous.
Although I must say I like the colossus change to make them possibly relevant again and the ravager idea sounds interesting.
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
Almost all the posts about this were sarcastic in response to the concept of auto inject. Someone in the feedback chain made a mistake.
that would be so priceless, if they took sarcasm seriously
it just shows they recognize the game should be better at this point, and they are willing to test pretty much anything; now is probably the best time to come up with radical ideas
also, they mentioned in this update a shoutout to koreans who dont complain but rather find solutions; if the koreans are so creative, maybe they should contact the top teamhouses and gather a bunch of input and test it, and be more selective with reddit
they have always strived to improve the game.......
I don't think much about the other changes, but, as someone who's bad at SC2, the power of harassment in even HotS is the most stressful thing I've ever tried to deal with in a video game, and not the most fun. So, naturally, I don't like that they're using it as reason not to do some macro changes that I think would be funner. :D
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
On August 22 2015 04:01 Charoisaur wrote: Lately DK is going full retard. removing macro mechanics, making everything easier, the terrible and unelegant warpin change, rebuffing the collossus... I had so much hope for LotV but with every community update I'm getting more and more disappointed. Why do you design such a phenomenal game like sc2 only to destroy it with its expansion???
it's a team effort. the expansion hasn't been released yet. You serve as a good example of people who come to conclusions with an unreasonable basis. I wouldn't be surprised if the auto build comment was a swipe at people like you. Perhaps, they were thinking to make the game more appealing to the masses by simplifying the game. Or had other reasons to try auto build.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
It's fine with me. Why does the tank need a "counter" at all? It's slow and immobile, so that's it's weakness. Having so many hard counters in the game is a bad thing.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
That's how it is in HotS and it seems to be working fine. The problem with siege tanks as zerg is not when the terran player has their first siege tank, but when they have lots of siege tanks. So it's ok that vipers are tier 3, because it's only at the later stage of the game that tanks become something that zerg need a specific counter to. Giving zerg a strong anti siege tank unit early in the game makes siege tanks useless in the early game (outside of drop harass).
I actually think it's good game design to have the counter units come out later than the unit they counter. If a unit can be countered immediately, then why build it at all?
Can you please explain to me why you think the change they have suggested to the ravager is a good thing?
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
This is a concerning point of view to have. Yes scouting should be important, but losing because you couldn't scout what your opponent is doing is stupid. I mean, you scout your opponent last on a 4 player map - should you lose for that? Starcraft 2 is too complex and interesting a game for it to be decided by random chance, depending on what build orders people use.
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
While this is true for players, it's also true for developers.
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides.
The offensive use of overcharge might be interesting...
Colossus We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
The range is but one of many things that can be changed on the colossus. Please don't focus only on one area. How about a movement speed change? How about a rate of fire change? How about changing the build time? Seems like they don't know what they're trying to do with this unit.
Adept We agree that early game Adepts can be a bit too powerful, and we would like to see a greater variety in Protoss army compositions. We have been trying various suggestions internally, and are leaning towards changing their cost from 100/25 to 75/50. This will slow down how many Adepts can be massed early on, and in the later stages of the game, it’ll be more of a commitment when going heavy Adepts. Another benefit that we’re seeing in the late game is that the army composition becomes more diverse due to the minerals-to-gas ratio. We will continue reviewing this internally and hopefully get it out to the beta if testing continues to go well.
Adepts are too tough. Zealots are the tanking unit for protoss (which is why they feel like they've lost their role). Adepts should be much weaker, but do more damage. Zealots can tank, sentries can protect. If you want more tanking, build zealots. If you want more protection, build sentries. If you want more damage, build adepts.
Ravager Upgrade We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank and entice Terran players to use different unit compositions depending on how the Zerg is playing. For example, if Zerg is going heavy Hydra/Lurkers, units like Liberators or Siege Tanks would be stronger, whereas if Zerg is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Siege Tanks or Liberators might not be as strong as other units such as Cyclones or speed-upgraded Banshees.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
Also, how does having more workers make losing workers more meaningful? If you have 60 workers and lose 5, isn't that less of a big deal than if you have 40 and you lose 5? The less workers you have, the larger percentage of your income you lose when one dies. If they still want to make losing workers more "meaningful", they can make them take longer to build, but I don't see this as a problem and don't understand their logic.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
What people don't like is that you are forced to expand in LotV, rather than it being an optional strategy. What you are essentially saying is that you agree that reducing the efficiency of workers will bring about the result you want, but you won't do it because you've come up with another way to do it (that nobody seems to like). How about you try reducing mining efficiency and revert mineral patches back to how they are in HotS?
Just because they don't implement an idea, doesn't mean they're not open minded. Every patch is testament to their willingness to try new ideas. If the idea doesn't meet certain points, etc, it will not be implemented. Fair enough.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
Lol tank a tier 1 unit?? i guess BCs are tier 1 units too and should be countered by zerglings.
Photon overcharge should be place on nexus bc it is a defensive spell. If you put it on a pylon, toss can build an offensive pylon and then place photo overcharge on top.
On August 22 2015 10:45 Antonidas wrote: Just because they don't try every idea out there doesn't mean they're not open minded. Every patch is testament to their willingness to try new ideas.
They are trying new ideas, but a lot of the ideas they are trying are illogical, random or just stupid. They don't seem to have a good idea of what they are trying to achieve. This is why there is so much emotion from the community - people don't feel like things are going in the right direction.
The fact that they repeatedly shut down community ideas suggests that they aren't open minded. They have made it quite clear that they are going to do what they want to do regardless of what people think. Having strong opinions on things as a developer is fine as long as you know what you're doing, but when you come across as being incompetent AND close minded it gets people concerned about the future of the game.
I was excited after yesterday, and now it's right back to being certain they have no idea what they're doing.
They really have no fucking clue what we mean by protoss being too gimmicky and badly designed despite 5 years of the exact same extremely verbose complaints.
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
League just started drastically changing the game with a series of patches that started yesterday. These will likely only effect worlds. I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't patch it after the ro32 of WCS/GSL conclude that would only effect the ro16 and on to blizzcon. The game absolutely can't sit as it is its beyond broken outside of terran's messing up or one off builds. They'd have to make a stance and patch it after a certain round of the leagues but I don't see it as being THAT big a problem.
And I meant more in the sense that they sent out a community update yesterday. And then ANOTHER today. I assumed something went horribly wrong
This update seems to show that while LotV is going to be drastically better than HotS, it's not going to fix everything that it would need to fix for an independently longterm game. Here's to hoping that the further tinkering that some of the invited secret blizzard conference guests have hinted at coming in a couple years will be some of the remaining severe structural changes that are necessary for a better Starcraft.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
That's how it is in HotS and it seems to be working fine. The problem with siege tanks as zerg is not when the terran player has their first siege tank, but when they have lots of siege tanks. So it's ok that vipers are tier 3, because it's only at the later stage of the game that tanks become something that zerg need a specific counter to. Giving zerg a strong anti siege tank unit early in the game makes siege tanks useless in the early game (outside of drop harass).
I actually think it's good game design to have the counter units come out later than the unit they counter. If a unit can be countered immediately, then why build it at all?
Can you please explain to me why you think the change they have suggested to the ravager is a good thing?
Seriously?, pffff. I´m not gona enter in the endless theory discussion, about what is going to happen or what not is going to happen. I prefer spend my time playing and testing the game than writing posts, if you want that discussion i guess there are many that like that too, but for me is enough, and don´t bother at trying to answer, because i already closed the window when you read this and really doubt im gona open again in a long time for the reasons mentioned before in my other post.
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
League just started drastically changing the game with a series of patches that started yesterday. These will likely only effect worlds. I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't patch it after the ro32 of WCS/GSL conclude that would only effect the ro16 and on to blizzcon. The game absolutely can't sit as it is its beyond broken outside of terran's messing up or one off builds. They'd have to make a stance and patch it after a certain round of the leagues but I don't see it as being THAT big a problem.
And I meant more in the sense that they sent out a community update yesterday. And then ANOTHER today. I assumed something went horribly wrong
Thing is, Riot Games's patch will not only effect worlds, it will effect the entire game ongoing. They aren't about to release a major expansion that makes previous balance irrelevant. The changes they're making have been in development for months, and are iterative changes to champs that have been in the game for a long time, done using a balancing process they have been practicing for years, in a game where there are a LOT of champions. Also, Riot have always taken a hands on role with controlling the metagame in LoL, so players are used to these types of changes.
The trend in SC2 is to let players dictate the metagame - which therefore evolves more slowly over time. Even if the change makes the game better in the long term, there isn't enough time for a new metagame to develop. By the time players figure out how to use and how to counter the "new" swarm host, LotV will be out. So why waste time and disrupt the metagame to fix a problem that won't exist in a few months anyway? What happens if they need to patch it again because it's too strong?
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
So you say Zerg have a tier 3 unit (viper) to counter a tier 1 unit (tank). And that is "ok" for you?, pf, when i read that i figure out that these theory discussions are pointless, a waste of time, and doesn´t have an objective perspective.
For me this is enough, i give up on these discussions. I know now why after in game are heavy balance problems.
That's how it is in HotS and it seems to be working fine. The problem with siege tanks as zerg is not when the terran player has their first siege tank, but when they have lots of siege tanks. So it's ok that vipers are tier 3, because it's only at the later stage of the game that tanks become something that zerg need a specific counter to. Giving zerg a strong anti siege tank unit early in the game makes siege tanks useless in the early game (outside of drop harass).
I actually think it's good game design to have the counter units come out later than the unit they counter. If a unit can be countered immediately, then why build it at all?
Can you please explain to me why you think the change they have suggested to the ravager is a good thing?
Seriously?, pffff. I´m not gona enter in the endless theory discussion, about what is going to happen or what not is going to happen. I prefer spend my time playing and testing the game than writing posts, if you want that discussion i guess there are many that like that too, but for me is enough, and don´t bother at trying to answer, because i already closed the window when you read this and really doubt im gona open again in a long time for the reasons mentioned before in my other post.
Thing is, you ARE entering into this discussion, you just aren't adding anything. You say you're testing the game - for what purpose are you testing if you aren't then going to communicate what you've discovered? What benefit is there to telling me I'm wrong without explaining why?
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
League just started drastically changing the game with a series of patches that started yesterday. These will likely only effect worlds. I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't patch it after the ro32 of WCS/GSL conclude that would only effect the ro16 and on to blizzcon. The game absolutely can't sit as it is its beyond broken outside of terran's messing up or one off builds. They'd have to make a stance and patch it after a certain round of the leagues but I don't see it as being THAT big a problem.
And I meant more in the sense that they sent out a community update yesterday. And then ANOTHER today. I assumed something went horribly wrong
Thing is, Riot Games's patch will not only effect worlds, it will effect the entire game ongoing. They aren't about to release a major expansion that makes previous balance irrelevant. The changes they're making have been in development for months, and are iterative changes to champs that have been in the game for a long time, done using a balancing process they have been practicing for years, in a game where there are a LOT of champions. Also, Riot have always taken a hands on role with controlling the metagame in LoL, so players are used to these types of changes.
The trend in SC2 is to let players dictate the metagame - which therefore evolves more slowly over time. Even if the change makes the game better in the long term, there isn't enough time for a new metagame to develop. By the time players figure out how to use and how to counter the "new" swarm host, LotV will be out. So why waste time and disrupt the metagame to fix a problem that won't exist in a few months anyway? What happens if they need to patch it again because it's too strong?
Yes but that would be the best time to do it. Ignoring any type of philosophy about meta and who shifts it a change that would only effect the WCS championships or the highest rounds of WCS/GSL/SSL would be ideal for a HotS balance change
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
League just started drastically changing the game with a series of patches that started yesterday. These will likely only effect worlds. I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't patch it after the ro32 of WCS/GSL conclude that would only effect the ro16 and on to blizzcon. The game absolutely can't sit as it is its beyond broken outside of terran's messing up or one off builds. They'd have to make a stance and patch it after a certain round of the leagues but I don't see it as being THAT big a problem.
And I meant more in the sense that they sent out a community update yesterday. And then ANOTHER today. I assumed something went horribly wrong
Thing is, Riot Games's patch will not only effect worlds, it will effect the entire game ongoing. They aren't about to release a major expansion that makes previous balance irrelevant. The changes they're making have been in development for months, and are iterative changes to champs that have been in the game for a long time, done using a balancing process they have been practicing for years, in a game where there are a LOT of champions. Also, Riot have always taken a hands on role with controlling the metagame in LoL, so players are used to these types of changes.
The trend in SC2 is to let players dictate the metagame - which therefore evolves more slowly over time. Even if the change makes the game better in the long term, there isn't enough time for a new metagame to develop. By the time players figure out how to use and how to counter the "new" swarm host, LotV will be out. So why waste time and disrupt the metagame to fix a problem that won't exist in a few months anyway? What happens if they need to patch it again because it's too strong?
Yes but that would be the best time to do it. Ignoring any type of philosophy about meta and who shifts it a change that would only effect the WCS championships or the highest rounds of WCS/GSL/SSL would be ideal for a HotS balance change
Obviously if they're going to make a change they should do it as early as possible. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a change. What happens if the change they make doesn't work, or works too well? Is mech is a little too strong against zerg at the moment? Probably. But it's not unbeatable - Byul and Dark this week have shown that Zerg can still win against terran at the highest level. Changing the swarm host with only a few months to go in HotS seems incredibly risky considering it normally takes months for the meta game to settle after a change.
Just replace overcharge with something new, some people have already recommended shield recharge as it could help in defending as well. Having overcharge on pylons just seems so damn awkward, no Blizzard.. Just no..
On August 22 2015 05:21 FaiFai wrote: The only thing i have to add to that statement :
"we don’t want to jump to conclusions and we don’t know if Zerg is underpowered against mech".
Is what?, what?, zerg expends 4x or 5x times the bank of terran at late game,and not even winning, but they are not sure if zerg is underpowered, unbelieveble.
The mass viper style seems to trade at a good enough efficiency considering the economic disparity. You can't see like less than 10 games and start whining like that. In case you're wondering, I play exclusively zerg.
Because it's pretty bad or at least awkward to use
But heart of the swarm is on its way out, there is an ALREADY DONE balance to ZvMech. I could understand if this were lotv but these problems aren't in legacy, Blizzard can't just put the retweaked HotS SH in LotV. Even if that's all they did the first time
EDIT: I should add that I'd love the SH to be fixed, but it doesn't make sense to try and tweak numbers and balance specifically for ZvMech when theres already a present solution. It just feels like by the time they figure out the proper numbers HotS will be irrelevant.
I agree with you. We've seen Byul beat Innovation, and Dark beat MMA recently, so it's not like mech is invincible. Yes, ideally mech would be tweaked, or zerg buffed, or something, but I'd rather they spent their time on LotV. LotV needs a LOT of work.
I think you missed my point. Mech in HotS needs a series nerf or zerg needs a buff that is only relevant in ZvT. My point is that there is an already established and successful change done in LotV, so just put it in HotS and at least TEST it (publicly aka a patch) before they move to the fucking swarm host of all units.
But yea LotV needs far more work than a 2015 release window has left in it. But in all reality the game needs to be balanced by WCS 2016 not necessarily the end of 2015.
EDIT: Also I can't be the only one who saw this thread initially and thought "What the fuck went wrong in a day?"
The thing is, we're more than halfway through season 3. When would you make the change? By the time it comes out it'll be the finals. I think we should just accept that the game is the way it is until LotV.
EDIT: I don't think things went wrong in one day, I think they've been incompetent all along.
League just started drastically changing the game with a series of patches that started yesterday. These will likely only effect worlds. I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't patch it after the ro32 of WCS/GSL conclude that would only effect the ro16 and on to blizzcon. The game absolutely can't sit as it is its beyond broken outside of terran's messing up or one off builds. They'd have to make a stance and patch it after a certain round of the leagues but I don't see it as being THAT big a problem.
And I meant more in the sense that they sent out a community update yesterday. And then ANOTHER today. I assumed something went horribly wrong
Thing is, Riot Games's patch will not only effect worlds, it will effect the entire game ongoing. They aren't about to release a major expansion that makes previous balance irrelevant. The changes they're making have been in development for months, and are iterative changes to champs that have been in the game for a long time, done using a balancing process they have been practicing for years, in a game where there are a LOT of champions. Also, Riot have always taken a hands on role with controlling the metagame in LoL, so players are used to these types of changes.
The trend in SC2 is to let players dictate the metagame - which therefore evolves more slowly over time. Even if the change makes the game better in the long term, there isn't enough time for a new metagame to develop. By the time players figure out how to use and how to counter the "new" swarm host, LotV will be out. So why waste time and disrupt the metagame to fix a problem that won't exist in a few months anyway? What happens if they need to patch it again because it's too strong?
Yes but that would be the best time to do it. Ignoring any type of philosophy about meta and who shifts it a change that would only effect the WCS championships or the highest rounds of WCS/GSL/SSL would be ideal for a HotS balance change
Obviously if they're going to make a change they should do it as early as possible. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a change. What happens if the change they make doesn't work, or works too well? Is mech is a little too strong against zerg at the moment? Probably. But it's not unbeatable - Byul and Dark this week have shown that Zerg can still win against terran at the highest level. Changing the swarm host with only a few months to go in HotS seems incredibly risky considering it normally takes months for the meta game to settle after a change.
Dark seems to do fine but let's see him vs proper opponents first, not players that are 10x inferior. Byul hasn't one a single game vs Inno late game mech unless you count the last one in which Inno, miraculously for Byul, forgot to upgrade armor.
On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote: People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
Agreed. I was very strongly against the auto inject change, as I enjoy doing injects as a zerg player. Having played some w/ this patch though i'm finding it doesn't bother me near as much as I thought it would. I am, however, having to adjust to the decreased larvae count.
Also, due to all of the bad reading comprehension in this thread, HE SAID THEY ARE NOT DOING THE AUTO BUILD. READ THE WHOLE THING FFS!
it can take a VERY long time for people to discover the right techniques in competitive games. I don't really blame them for taking that sort of stuff slow, and to be frank unless it's something absolutely glaringly bad, I'd rather they take it slow.Brood War took years for people to find the techinques that make it balanced today. Hell, in Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, t.hawk was borderline useless for two decades up until a few years ago when someone discovered a single technique that made him top tier.
Anything that equates to "we're giving things a chance to pan out" is exactly what you want to hear from the developer of a competitive game. It IS really disheartening to read that next several paragraphs that just show they don't have a clue what's wrong with the game.
On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote: People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing.
Agreed. I was very strongly against the auto inject change, as I enjoy doing injects as a zerg player. Having played some w/ this patch though i'm finding it doesn't bother me near as much as I thought it would. I am, however, having to adjust to the decreased larvae count.
Also, due to all of the bad reading comprehension in this thread, HE SAID THEY ARE NOT DOING THE AUTO BUILD. READ THE WHOLE THING FFS!
While I'm not going to claim to have read every single post in the thread I've read most of them. The problem to me, and seemingly the few others I've read, is that they even TESTED such a stupid idea. And then said "look guys we listen but it doesn't really work".
Of fucking course auto build wouldn't work. It was a joke. They "listen" to the jokes but make little to no references to any serious suggestion
On August 22 2015 03:36 jinjin5000 wrote: Ravagers already delt with siege tanks well when they flanked or waited until roaches tanked damage. I don't know why they are trying to nerf siege tanks even more-its not that great at state right now and needs lots of support like liberator hellbat and cyclone to make it work and they are looking to reduce it even further
This so much. Jesus.... just remove tanks altogether if you want them destroyed so bad.
The Collossus buff, nah get rid of it. Maybe increase it's speed but decrease range and damage dealt, but please don't revert to the old one again. As many said, it is a-move BS EZ PZ and has no place in LoTV at this point.
Like the Adept change, still may need another slight nerf.
And absolutely NO to the Photon Overcharge ideas.... please. If anything it needs to be removed altogether. This change is outright ridiculous. At least it is interesting on a dynamic level.
Overall not terrible changes, as long as the continue to listen to community suggestions and at least try some of them the when LoTV comes out it will be in a great place.
Thanks for the updates, please take the opinions in this thread under consideration!!!
P.S. The reduced worker count explanation was absolutely rubbish and makes no sense (if you think about it).
On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
This is a concerning point of view to have. Yes scouting should be important, but losing because you couldn't scout what your opponent is doing is stupid. I mean, you scout your opponent last on a 4 player map - should you lose for that? Starcraft 2 is too complex and interesting a game for it to be decided by random chance, depending on what build orders people use.
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
While this is true for players, it's also true for developers.
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides.
The offensive use of overcharge might be interesting...
Colossus We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
The range is but one of many things that can be changed on the colossus. Please don't focus only on one area. How about a movement speed change? How about a rate of fire change? How about changing the build time? Seems like they don't know what they're trying to do with this unit.
Adept We agree that early game Adepts can be a bit too powerful, and we would like to see a greater variety in Protoss army compositions. We have been trying various suggestions internally, and are leaning towards changing their cost from 100/25 to 75/50. This will slow down how many Adepts can be massed early on, and in the later stages of the game, it’ll be more of a commitment when going heavy Adepts. Another benefit that we’re seeing in the late game is that the army composition becomes more diverse due to the minerals-to-gas ratio. We will continue reviewing this internally and hopefully get it out to the beta if testing continues to go well.
Adepts are too tough. Zealots are the tanking unit for protoss (which is why they feel like they've lost their role). Adepts should be much weaker, but do more damage. Zealots can tank, sentries can protect. If you want more tanking, build zealots. If you want more protection, build sentries. If you want more damage, build adepts.
Ravager Upgrade We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank and entice Terran players to use different unit compositions depending on how the Zerg is playing. For example, if Zerg is going heavy Hydra/Lurkers, units like Liberators or Siege Tanks would be stronger, whereas if Zerg is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Siege Tanks or Liberators might not be as strong as other units such as Cyclones or speed-upgraded Banshees.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units.
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
Also, how does having more workers make losing workers more meaningful? If you have 60 workers and lose 5, isn't that less of a big deal than if you have 40 and you lose 5? The less workers you have, the larger percentage of your income you lose when one dies. If they still want to make losing workers more "meaningful", they can make them take longer to build, but I don't see this as a problem and don't understand their logic.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
What people don't like is that you are forced to expand in LotV, rather than it being an optional strategy. What you are essentially saying is that you agree that reducing the efficiency of workers will bring about the result you want, but you won't do it because you've come up with another way to do it (that nobody seems to like). How about you try reducing mining efficiency and revert mineral patches back to how they are in HotS?
I didn't have the time to write anything extensive. But essentially this is EXACTLY how I feel as well.
David Kim, READ THIS POST and listen to his (Quineotio's) input.
We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank
Oh holy fuck i missed that part
please no more siege tank counters from zerg and protoss, the unit is already too weak at its primary role (securing space and slow-pushing) - when "Mech" is mentioned, it usually has heavy emphasis on other units. Warhounds, hellbats, mines. Vikings are made as an alternative to goliaths and tanks have definately taken a back seat - the current versions of disruptor (too much range) and this ravagar change is just making that far worse.
+1 for that post, pretty much everything is spot on. Adepts already hit very hard though (and that's very good) - they just hit nothing against Armored. Feels like pre-hellbat hellions against roaches.
Regarding Heart of the Swarm Mech/Swarm Host Balance Test Map I think an important thing is not taking in consideration.
I remember when Z players said Ravens were imba. Actually they were pretty good, in a HUGE number ( 15/20 which is a very important amount of gaz and they are pretty fragile to any fungul which any good players use if ravens are in game ) at the end of the game. But pro players could easily avoid the seeker missiles. But now with the nerf of pdd I saw pro player would rather use BCS. They are way more effective and way less fragile.
Now I saw players on chat during SSL and GSL matches saying Mech is way too much imba against Zerg ( with bcs instead of ravens ) And they were asking the return of swarm hosts. Ok no pb but get back the normal duration of Pdd.
And on the last GSL/SSL matches, mech vs zerg wasn't so imba since a lot of terrans got eliminated. For me the most important games to prove what I mean is Fantasy vs Byul lately played. I remember all Z players on chat said terran mech imba, we need swarm host etc... Byul was losing against mech. I said on chat he just has to use more vipers. He lost 2 games using only 2 vipers they got killed before to arrive in the fight. That was ridiculous to complain about that. Meanwhile the last game he made 9/10 vipers byul rekted completely fantasy's army. So imo it is stupid to think Ravens is imba if 20 at end game, and vipers too underpowered if only 2 in a game and got killed by vikings before to use their abilities.* Just make more and they will be so effective and terran mech will be easily killed. Especially if z players use mobility of nydus as Dark did. With mech repositionning his army when nydus arrives in the main at the place of factories production is a terrible thing.
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
One big point I disagree with in this post:
Harassment isn't the cause of deathballs, it's the alternative. When you build an army and attack, there's three things you can try to kill:
-his army -his production/tech buildings -his economy
If you want your army to kill his army, you put them all in one spot and make the strongest, deathball-iest composition you can, and then you go fight win. If you want to kill his production/tech buildings, you do a two pronged attack to draw his army out of position and then snipe a forge or spawning pool or a bunch of add-ons or something. If you want to kill his economy, you attack all over the map, killing workers and bases without ever engaging head-on. Harassment is the third option, and the least prone to death balls.
That said, I think I'd prefer harassment be a bigger supply sink (e.g. a medivac full of marines) rather than just being really expensive (e.g. oracle or banshee).
On August 22 2015 14:19 bObA wrote: Regarding Heart of the Swarm Mech/Swarm Host Balance Test Map I think an important thing is not taking in consideration.
I remember when Z players said Ravens were imba. Actually they were pretty good, in a HUGE number ( 15/20 which is a very important amount of gaz and they are pretty fragile to any fungul which any good players use if ravens are in game ) at the end of the game. But pro players could easily avoid the seeker missiles. But now with the nerf of pdd I saw pro player would rather use BCS. They are way more effective and way less fragile.
Now I saw players on chat during SSL and GSL matches saying Mech is way too much imba against Zerg ( with bcs instead of ravens ) And they were asking the return of swarm hosts. Ok no pb but get back the normal duration of Pdd.
And on the last GSL/SSL matches, mech vs zerg wasn't so imba since a lot of terrans got eliminated. For me the most important games to prove what I mean is Fantasy vs Byul lately played. I remember all Z players on chat said terran mech imba, we need swarm host etc... Byul was losing against mech. I said on chat he just has to use more vipers. He lost 2 games using only 2 vipers they got killed before to arrive in the fight. That was ridiculous to complain about that. Meanwhile the last game he made 9/10 vipers byul rekted completely fantasy's army. So imo it is stupid to think Ravens is imba if 20 at end game, and vipers too underpowered if only 2 in a game and got killed by vikings before to use their abilities.* Just make more and they will be so effective and terran mech will be easily killed. Especially if z players use mobility of nydus as Dark did. With mech repositionning his army when nydus arrives in the main at the place of factories production is a terrible thing.
Agree.
Adding to the nydus thing, I don't like how in HotS they die so easily, but I also don't like how in LotV they are invulnerable until they spawn. I think there are a couple of possible better solutions. First option is a simple health buff to the nydus (but let them be attacked while spawning). This would still allow for counterplay, but make nydus arrive more often. Second option, allow multiple worms to be built at once, which allows the zerg player to increase the likelihood a nydus will survive at the cost of more money.
I like the new macro changes more than I expected, it feels more simplified. Terran standard traditional rts build and queue Protoss a mix of warp in and build queue Zerg with larva and creep (and spread overlord if thats considered macro)
On the other hand I find the new warp in very strange to play with. It needs a lot more polishing
As for ravaged range buff, I think it's worth a try, one more option for Zerg doesn't hurt as long as it isn't too hard countered which I think can be balanced out fine
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
Harassment isn't the cause of deathballs, it's the alternative.
No, it is a cause. David Kim shares your belief, which is why despite the fact that there are extremely powerful harassment options in SC2, there are still deathballs. Why would you bother moving your entire army out onto the map when you can just send a couple of oracles? Why would you move out when your opponent could drop your base and kill you as soon as you leave? The most reliable strategies in SC2 involve a strong defense against harass (i.e. keeping your army at home), while using powerful harassment units to gain a decisive advantage, then attacking with your entire army.
If you didn't have to worry about losing your mineral line every time you move your army out, you could leave your army in more offensive positions, like at your opponent's third, or controlling an important path in the middle of the map. As it stands, the further you are from your base, the greater the risk of losing the game due to a harass unit that represents a relatively small investment by the opponent. Basically in SC2, they have traded army vs army for harass vs harass.
The other cause of death-balls is of course the economy. If you're weak early game, but strong late game, it makes sense to play for the late game. With the current economy, Protoss and Terran mech can both easily play defensively until 3 bases, which is enough of an economy to max out. The counter to this should be for the opponent to take more bases and get an economic lead, and translate that lead into a unit advantage. But the 3 base cap minimizes the economic counter.
So because Protoss/Terran mech can't be punished for playing to their strengths, and because they both have powerful, low cost harassment options, they play the death-ball style of game we all love to hate.
That said, I think I'd prefer harassment be a bigger supply sink (e.g. a medivac full of marines) rather than just being really expensive (e.g. oracle or banshee).
Yes, harass should be a bigger supply sink - ideally it should involve your entire army. At the moment, both players defend until the big fight at the end. The best game are the ones where entire armies are moving around the map.
One of the biggest mistakes Blizzard made with SC2 was giving drop and heal to the same unit. Terran needs healing, but when they get healing they get drop for free. They've done a reasonable job of balancing this, but bio armies will always have to be weak in head to head engagements to make up for the fact that their army is so mobile. Dropping should be an option for terran, but it shouldn't be the default option. Personally I'd rather if terran has a stronger bio army without free drop tech, because it would mean less mineral line drops and more fights in the middle. It would also make it more exciting when terran did drop, because it'd be a riskier strategy. At the moment, losing a medivac doesn't matter that much because you're always building more anyway.
But if you can harass and keep your army at home to defend against your opponent's harass, surely it would be stronger to defend the harass with only a small force, attack in one place, and harass in another. That way your opponent has to defend your push, and they can't defend your harass as well. This is how non-deathball armies generally work, and without strong harassment options, those styles don't work. Instead they're forced to instead just go for straight up strong units, and try to win deathball v. deathball.
I'm confused, you dislike deathballs but you want bio to be less harass-focused and better as a deathball? Those seem antithetical to me.
Have you really had a big problem with people camping on three bases? The new economy seems so punishing for that kind of play.
On August 22 2015 15:33 ChristianS wrote: But if you can harass and keep your army at home to defend against your opponent's harass, surely it would be stronger to defend the harass with only a small force, attack in one place, and harass in another. That way your opponent has to defend your push, and they can't defend your harass as well. This is how non-deathball armies generally work, and without strong harassment options, those styles don't work. Instead they're forced to instead just go for straight up strong units, and try to win deathball v. deathball.
I'm confused, you dislike deathballs but you want bio to be less harass-focused and better as a deathball? Those seem antithetical to me.
Have you really had a big problem with people camping on three bases? The new economy seems so punishing for that kind of play.
You are describing an idealistic view of what you think the game should be, not what the game is. If harass was the solution to death-balls, we would no longer have death-balls.
I didn't say I want terran bio to be a death-ball, I said I think drop tech should be separate from heal tech and terran bio should be buffed. This would serve the role of reducing the strength of drop harass and making it less common, and make terran bio more useful in engagements on the map and therefore more likely to be used in that role, and also remove some of the dissincentive for the opponent to move their army onto the map because they are less likely to be backstabbed.
Really starting to feel like Terran is a broken race. Like, every design post is "we needed to change this so they could stand up to Terran". So.. They add overpowered Terran stuff, make everyone powerful as a counter, then nerf Terran. Feels like MAYBE you should just do something more with Terran
Good to see they noticed the mech problem and are willing to do something about it before the new expansion and not make the same mistake they did with BL Infestor.
Below is my realistic wish-list. The type of changes that could improve balance and David Kim might actually implement (and that isn't mentioned in his post from yesterday).
Terran Siege tank reduced to 2 supply Hellion and Hellbat reduced to 75 minerals. HP reduced by 10 and 20 respectively. Marauder cost changed to 75/50 from 100/25 Planetary cost increased (to disincentivize players from building Planetary at their 3rd).
Zerg Infestor receives new ability that "counters" Cyclones (would make sense that the Infestor gets an actual role and that the Viper isn't just better at everything).
Protoss Warp Prism now takes 16 seconds to warp in by default as well. Upgrade at Robo Bay added that reduces it to 2 seconds.
On August 22 2015 17:43 KaZeFenrir wrote: Really starting to feel like Terran is a broken race. Like, every design post is "we needed to change this so they could stand up to Terran". So.. They add overpowered Terran stuff, make everyone powerful as a counter, then nerf Terran. Feels like MAYBE you should just do something more with Terran
Every race is broken. Their design method is broken. They focus too much on fixing high level problems and not enough on fixing the fundamental aspects of the game. For example, the recent macro change (which i think is a change in the right direction) should have been introduced right at the beginning of the beta. They essentially wasted the first few months of beta because all balance has now changed.
The ultralisk is another good example of bad design methodology. I posted about the ultralisk elsewhere, but essentially their attempt to fix the ultralisk created a new problem, which they then tried to fix by changing the ghost. Instead of chasing their tail, why didn't they try a version of the ultralisk that didn't break the game? I mean they recognized that the high armor they had just given to ultras was a problem, so they decide to give an anti armor drone to the ghost?
So damn frustrating reading their community feedback and getting condescending stuff like this:
Before we begin, we’d like to send a shout-out to the highest level pro-gamers out there in Korea who are always looking to find new strategies, counters to those strategies, and doing all they can to find solutions to obstacles within the game. It is both inspiring and admirable to see top end players who work through significant adversity to adapt and find new strategies and tactics. In many of the top-end pro-level HotS games this week, we saw lots of interesting counters to certain strategies that were seen as unbeatable, and it was awesome to be reminded that there are players out there who will explore things to find their own solutions rather than immediately jumping to extreme conclusions.
What is that if not a dig at the community?
Thank you for discussions in this area this week. The main points that could contribute to the “gimmicky” feelings point toward offensive warp-ins, which should be addressed with this week’s patch. So overall, this is potentially a non-issue if testing goes smoothly with the new changes.
Do they really think that the community feels protoss is gimmicky because of offensive warp-ins? To me, all they are doing with the community feedback is confirming what we already suspect - that they don't know what they're doing, or understand what the community wants. It feels like they're communicating because they have to, not because they want to or value our feedback.
i agree with the first paragraph of this post. All we can say here is broodwar. The game has been untouched since forever and people are still finding new strats and ways to kill those imba builds. The recent tourney of this game show us. The game looks totally changed from when i used to play it back when i was a lad!
People are too quick to judge the balance and its mainly down to the fact that their 'gm stated ALLin' doesnt work any more so they 'cri erry timez'. Sometimes i think as much as people go on about broodwar in this community the more suspect im becomming to many users ever having played it at all. SC2 goes through too many changes too quickly imo. No! Buying it a few years a go from the legacy games section of blizz doesnt count as you playing and remembering it.
As for the patch here, all i can say here is archon mode. Me and my friend are beginning to play it as a coach tool. we play solo other guy suggests and we have beaten all of these unkillable builds that way. When we see it going bad i take a very small excursion to see if i can even the odds in some way while he carries on with his game. Its amazing how the ideas open up and how differently we view the game when we do this and with the combined knowledge we have won some pretty impossible situations. The game has never been more exciting as it has been right now. Me personally would love to see weekends where they revert the game, or a testmap back to the infester/brood, adeptAllin, widowmine/hellbat/vac patches and im going to put my house on it that we would find a way to beat it all.
Can someone explain how shield battery would be good for the game? Photon overcharge on pylon is superior to shield battery cuz there will be plays to be considered on both ends just like they explain. While shield battery is just like, yeah i heal my shields now.. and thats it. VERY fun ability guys!!! The mechanic of PO ur nexus and just whack away at opponent when he didn't have enough units was silly i agree. The counterplays wasn't enough or interesting cuz when u have enough units u just go in and snipe the nexus anyway. You can't really compare roach healing with having shield battery cuz there really is alot of decision making with your roaches when to burrow for heal and using them moments later and when to risk low roaches for extra damage. Shield battery is just as lame as PO on nexus, forget about it.
Also the ignorance and lack of understanding among this community... You guys want Blizzard to be more involved and communicate with us. They let us know they do that, they even try the silly things you guys consider to be good for the game and then u get angry at them for telling you atleast they were nice enough to take their time to internally test it.
im exicted for the MSC change, its a step in the right direction. Pylons are snipeable and dont hardcounter certain pushes like 1-1-1 anymore, at the same time it opens a lot of possibilities.
I play protoss and i enjoyed defending against these things.
On August 22 2015 18:37 weikor wrote: im exicted for the MSC change, its a step in the right direction. Pylons are snipeable and dont hardcounter certain pushes like 1-1-1 anymore, at the same time it opens a lot of possibilities.
I play protoss and i enjoyed defending against these things.
I think zerg and terran drops as well as things like oracles will wreck protoss pretty hard unless the tradeoff for less range is even more power.
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I think that if you want Stacraft 2 to stay in this kinda "elite group of players state" cuz casuals think the game is to demanding then yes. But actually myself quit playing the game bcuz of inject larva, when you find yourself in a game and you have kept up with resource expanding, unit maneuvering, unit production (and even larvja inject for ~ 15 min) you have the resources and vital positioning on the map and all of a sudden you just lack the larva to continue your strategy. For me that is to detrimental for my enjoyment of the game and it feels like ive just wasted the time only to get to a point where not having enough larva broke everything i had going in the game. Very harsh...
Auto-build is a bad idea but how about queueing not costing until building begins?
I guess this could present other issues but a lot of other games have systems where constructing units drains resources during construction so if you have 0 resources you stop building until some more is added, which progresses things a bit.
It's quite a big change though and is probably a bit late in the game to introduce without compromising the integrity of the engine.
Shame though as I'd like ways to have less focus on macro in the later game, I like the initial base building and sim citying but I'm not Flash so when it hits the mid-late game I'd rather focus on attacking, defending and harassing.
I'd like to do a linguistics study on what percentage of users on this forum uses the word "community" to mean "the people who share my opinion", and ultimately, basically, "me".
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I think that if you want Stacraft 2 to stay in this kinda "elite group of players state" cuz casuals think the game is to demanding then yes. But actually myself quit playing the game bcuz of inject larva, when you find yourself in a game and you have kept up with resource expanding, unit maneuvering, unit production (and even larvja inject for ~ 15 min) you have the resources and vital positioning on the map and all of a sudden you just lack the larva to continue your strategy. For me that is to detrimental for my enjoyment of the game and it feels like ive just wasted the time only to get to a point where not having enough larva broke everything i had going in the game. Very harsh...
Well I guess the game should be neutered at a level where the people who are going to keep playing it play, so the people who play a tiny amount with no real desire to improve are able to make some pathetic excuse as to why they lost.
On August 22 2015 19:21 adwodon wrote: Auto-build is a bad idea but how about queueing not costing until building begins?
I guess this could present other issues but a lot of other games have systems where constructing units drains resources during construction so if you have 0 resources you stop building until some more is added, which progresses things a bit.
It's quite a big change though and is probably a bit late in the game to introduce without compromising the integrity of the engine.
Shame though as I'd like ways to have less focus on macro in the later game, I like the initial base building and sim citying but I'm not Flash so when it hits the mid-late game I'd rather focus on attacking, defending and harassing.
Like in broodwar where building doesn't cost something until you start building it (bases I mean).
On August 22 2015 19:22 Nebuchad wrote: I'd like to do a linguistics study on what percentage of users on this forum uses the word "community" to mean "the people who share my opinion", and ultimately, basically, "me".
I'd like to do a linguistics study on which people who proclaim themselves to be a part of the "community" have played in any tournaments, play online, play at all, or just post on team liquid/reddit.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
I'm all for testing new stuff, but adressing adept cost/ravager range before looking into design-broken units is idiotic. Parasitic bomb, carriers, liberators, MACRO MECHANICS : no one cares about the ravager range. Please.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
David Kim calls an emergency meeting to discuss internal testing with supply removed
Having played quite a bit with the new autoinject thingie, im having mixed feelings; although i enjoy that it lets you focus more on other stuff and maybe expand a little better, i kinda miss the frenzy of playing zerg the old way, when i had to concentrate on everything including injects. It was just really immersive even if difficult.
If this change will pass the testing phase it will have some benefits, but will kill some of the charm of playing zerg. I will then probably switch to playing terran which is more micro intensive to get that multitasking feeling again
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
I agree with Big J's response to you.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less.
And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
Not everything has to have a meaningful choice? The examples you gave are all examples of meaningful choice. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "l-cancel", but the type of units you build and when are both important choices in BW. Last hitting is one of the main things you do in a MOBA - the players are constantly interacting with each other positioning, harassing while attempting to get as many last hits as possible. Not only that but there are situations in which you don't want to last hit, such as when you roam, or when you suspect the jungler is going to gank you, or when you're at low health.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
Wanting things to have meaning is new? You need evidence for meaningful choice being a good thing? What other game had a mechanic similar to inject, that was then removed to the detriment of the game? And why are you now talking about the skill floor? I thought you said earlier that removing skill barriers doesn't work, as there will always be methods of differentiating players?
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
Not comparable. Last hitting creates an incentive to be out on the map, and thus gives options for the enemy team to attack you. Inject doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't interact with anything and you are just playing a minigame with yourself.
Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar,
What I dont understand is why is it so important for casual players to have things like especially inject removed? Its not like the system will put them against other players that hit every inject/production cycle. For me it seems to only lower the ways of creating a skill gap for players that put effort into their game and fun/casual gamers. At the end though the casual remains someone that puts little effort into it and then will just get outplayed another way. And I guess then this way has to be made easier as well...
Anyway, I never played BW I do play all 3 races since 3 years on a noob level and I feel happy seeing my apm/ability to multitask go up. Doesnt matter it doesnt go up that high I can compete at high levels, but I constantly see improvement as small as they may be and its fun. This definitly takes one part of improving away.
Really, inject doesn't affect the rest of the zerg gameplay? Pretty sure if somethings difficult enough it impacts other facets of the game. Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
On another note, I think you're reaching pretty hard by saying building units is a decision that needs to be taken. 99.9% of the time the unit choice is decided before the game gets going, copied from people better then them. Marine, Marauder, Widowmine was developed by flash/innovation and pretty much everyone followed there flowchart of playing the game. At the 15 minute mark the decisions of what units were coming out of the barracks were fairly linear.
And yeh, I can find so many games of dota with a safelane 2/3 v 1 farming for the first 10 minutes. There is literally no decision making for the am, he just hits everything he possibly can. Funnily enough one of the things dota players always detract from league is the lack of denying creeps. Theres another no brainer, if you can get a deny is there any situation you would ever not want to?
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less.
And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
The mechanics you listed are all more entertaining than macro mechanics though.
L cancelling in melee can make a complicated combo possible and lead to crowds screaming their heads off.
Last hitting in Mobas are fun because it involves players actually fighting each other and competing for last hits, and sometimes it even leads to kills.
Creating units is just a fundamental part of an RTS game, so i wouldn't even consider that an example.
Those are all more in depth than a player going back to his base and casting a few spells on a set routine. And more entertaining too, because those mechanics involve actual competition between the players, whereas macro mechanics are just busy work that the players dip into by themselves, usually off screen. Perhaps macro mechanics would be better if players had to actually work for their boosts, rather than just wait for energy to build up.
On August 22 2015 23:28 bo1b wrote: Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
Exactly!
So how is that not an option of play? Is that not literally the definition of a macro based player? Ie. One that focuses on producing units instead of microing them?
On August 22 2015 23:29 Spawkuring wrote: The mechanics you listed are all more entertaining than macro mechanics though.
L cancelling in melee can make a complicated combo possible and lead to crowds screaming their heads off.
So really because people don't go nuts over making it possible for zerg to build lots of units it's not good. Btw theres a clip called flashes macro which features fangirls losing there shit as he marches a zilion units down the map to attack his opponent. I suspect that if sc2 was ever as popular as broodwar, and there were highlights of drg marching a million zerglings across the map at innovation to win game 2/3 there would be people appreciating the injects that took place.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:
On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
I agree with Big J's response to you.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less.
And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
On August 22 2015 23:27 loko822 wrote: What I dont understand is why is it so important for casual players to have things like especially inject removed? Its not like the system will put them against other players that hit every inject/production cycle. For me it seems to only lower the ways of creating a skill gap for players that put effort into their game and fun/casual gamers. At the end though the casual remains someone that puts little effort into it and then will just get outplayed another way. And I guess then this way has to be made easier as well...
Anyway, I never played BW I do play all 3 races since 3 years on a noob level and I feel happy seeing my apm/ability to multitask go up. Doesnt matter it doesnt go up that high I can compete at high levels, but I constantly see improvement as small as they may be and its fun. This definitly takes one part of improving away.
The argument for the removal of macro mechanics is not based solely on the fact that it will improve the game for "casuals". It's not an argument for making the game easier. It's an argument for taking away a punishing mechanic that involves little choice or player interaction so that players will spend a higher percentage of their time making meaningful decisions, controlling their armies and interacting with their opponent.
The macro mechanics are an attention tax. Tax sucks.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:
On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
I agree with Big J's response to you.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less.
And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.
Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well.
But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:
On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well?
Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument.
I agree with Big J's response to you.
I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play".
Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less.
And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
I'm not saying the crowd has to go crazy. Crowds don't go crazy for last hitting, but it stills allows for meaningful interaction between players, which is more than I can say for spamming a few mules on a base.
God I wish they removed armor and weapons from ut/quake, establising dominance in a duel then running around the map to a timer is just a tax. While we're at it remove recoil from cs pls, another tax on the game which doesn't do anything but introduce an arbitrary hurdle.
I think all mobas should be like heroes of the storm, where there's no gold or items, just xp. That way we can get to focusing on the interactions cause they're what matter.
Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
On August 22 2015 23:28 bo1b wrote: Really, inject doesn't affect the rest of the zerg gameplay? Pretty sure if somethings difficult enough it impacts other facets of the game. Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
On another note, I think you're reaching pretty hard by saying building units is a decision that needs to be taken. 99.9% of the time the unit choice is decided before the game gets going, copied from people better then them. Marine, Marauder, Widowmine was developed by flash/innovation and pretty much everyone followed there flowchart of playing the game. At the 15 minute mark the decisions of what units were coming out of the barracks were fairly linear.
And yeh, I can find so many games of dota with a safelane 2/3 v 1 farming for the first 10 minutes. There is literally no decision making for the am, he just hits everything he possibly can. Funnily enough one of the things dota players always detract from league is the lack of denying creeps. Theres another no brainer, if you can get a deny is there any situation you would ever not want to?
If you want to be a copycat you choose that yourself, that's not the game telling you "go make marine/marauder". And if there is no other way of playing the game people do fucking whine about it, because there is no choice. Maybe heard the term "stale meta" before?
Inject doesn't offer choices from a stance of ingame mechanics. It's completely non-sensical to argue that a specific ingame mechanic interacts via player skill with the rest. That's true for everything I can come up with. But I don't believe you would defend everything I can come up with.
Last hitting is a mechanical battle. It is interactive, so I don't mind it being mainly mechanical as it is a mechanical battle with someone else. And the mechanic behind it is attacking, which does offer you quite a range of choices. You have various attack targets, sometimes you have to choose between denying a kill or making one. Sometimes you have to choose which one you will try for while your opponent might try the same one. Sometimes you may not want to last hit because your opponent could hurt you. Sometimes you may even want to hit your opponent. Yes, there are games where everyone is only last hitting (I guess, I don't follow DotA, only play it from time to time). But that's an interactive decision created through strategical interaction. Not because "you chose zerg, injecting is best" (blizzard even made a tooltip that said "always inject").
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
BW hasn't been played in any other country besides South Korea for over 10 years. There can be various cultural reasons for why BW is played in Korea today. From what I gathered, the majority of South Koreans also never played alot of 1v1 in BW, instead it was mostly custom games.
Point is that there is little reason to expect that mechanics for the sake of mechanics (that doesn't interact with the opponent) can work today and in the near future. All other succesful games are removing unncesary complications in the design proces.
i absolutely love the new patch and the removal of macro mechanics
game pacing feels awesome, reminds me more of BW than any other game since
that being said, i still think zerg could use a new micro toy to spend those freed up apms on. right now the only unit that leads to really cool engagements is the ravager
On August 22 2015 23:28 bo1b wrote: Really, inject doesn't affect the rest of the zerg gameplay? Pretty sure if somethings difficult enough it impacts other facets of the game. Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
On another note, I think you're reaching pretty hard by saying building units is a decision that needs to be taken. 99.9% of the time the unit choice is decided before the game gets going, copied from people better then them. Marine, Marauder, Widowmine was developed by flash/innovation and pretty much everyone followed there flowchart of playing the game. At the 15 minute mark the decisions of what units were coming out of the barracks were fairly linear.
And yeh, I can find so many games of dota with a safelane 2/3 v 1 farming for the first 10 minutes. There is literally no decision making for the am, he just hits everything he possibly can. Funnily enough one of the things dota players always detract from league is the lack of denying creeps. Theres another no brainer, if you can get a deny is there any situation you would ever not want to?
If you want to be a copycat you choose that yourself, that's not the game telling you "go make marine/marauder". And if there is no other way of playing the game people do fucking whine about it, because there is no choice. Maybe heard the term "stale meta" before?
Inject doesn't offer choices from a stance of ingame mechanics. It's completely non-sensical to argue that a specific ingame mechanic interacts via player skill with the rest. That's true for everything I can come up with. But I don't believe you would defend everything I can come up with.
Last hitting is a mechanical battle. It is interactive, so I don't mind it being mainly mechanical as it is a mechanical battle with someone else. And the mechanic behind it is attacking, which does offer you quite a range of choices. You have various attack targets, sometimes you have to choose between denying a kill or making one. Sometimes you have to choose which one you will try for while your opponent might try the same one. Sometimes you may not want to last hit because your opponent could hurt you. Sometimes you may even want to hit your opponent. Yes, there are games where everyone is only last hitting (I guess, I don't follow DotA, only play it from time to time). But that's an interactive decision created through strategical interaction. Not because "you chose zerg, injecting is best" (blizzard even made a tooltip that said "always inject").
Except that by and large unit compositions have historically been the same throughout each expansion, with a few exceptions. The changing meta has more to do with getting to that point/winning before it then it does with new revolutionary unit compositions. Marine/marauder/medivac has been the bio composition with minute changes for 5 years now. The decision making in sc2 in regards to what to build/produce happens a lot earlier in the game then when everythings established. I've never seen someone argue for automated unit production once the midgame hits so that people can focus more on interacting with there opponents.
What you are saying is largely overstating the complexity of last hitting. I would posit that the complexity of last hitting has almost nothing to do with targeting the unit at the right time but more with exerting pressure on the lane, and knowing in general what you can and cannot get away with. A good tri-lane in dota/hon will almost always be the one to secure complete lane dominance, and in the situation with one tri-lane vs another there is almost always a dominant one depending on what heroes are picked.
Really, what I'm saying is that by allowing people to achieve overwhelming skill with macro or micro different playstyles can exist. If this patch goes through and everyone above diamond can macro like drg I think the game will have lost something.
game pacing feels awesome, reminds me more of BW than any other game since
People need to stop spreading this myth. The current pacing of the game has very little to do with the BW pacing as BW income rate was much much higher in the late game and there was much less army trading going on in BW early game and midgame than in LOTV atm.
The pacing is very very far off from what it was in BW.
The decision making in sc2 in regards to what to build/produce happens a lot earlier in the game then when everythings established.
The point is that you adjust your composition mix in relation to what the opponent is building. So if he has more Ultras than Mutalisks, you get more Maurauders in relation to Marines. That's interactive!
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
BW hasn't been played in any other country besides South Korea for over 10 years. There can be various cultural reasons for why BW is played in Korea today. From what I gathered, the majority of South Koreans also never played alot of 1v1 in BW, instead it was mostly custom games.
Point is that there is little reason to expect that mechanics for the sake of mechanics (that doesn't interact with the opponent) can work today and in the near future. All other succesful games are removing unncesary complications in the design proces.
Starcraft 2 and starcraft broodwar, smash melee and smash 4, cs go and cs source are the only games I can think of which feature one sequel making dramatic changes to the mechanical skill in each. Sc2 is on life support from blizzards wallet, smash 4 I seriously, seriously doubt will last as long a melee, and cs go which reintroduced mechanics from cs 1.6 has had an enormous recovery after they did so.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
game pacing feels awesome, reminds me more of BW than any other game since
People need to stop spreading this myth. The current pacing of the game has very little to do with the BW pacing as BW income rate was much much higher in the late game and there was much less army trading going on in BW early game and midgame than in LOTV atm.
The pacing is very very far off from what it was in BW.
While I haven't played all that much of lotv's most recent patch there was a ton of action happening early and mid game in broodwar.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
Stop sitting on the keyboard!
Still waiting on you to elaborate on your mentioning of Brood war as the game that has no "attention taxes"?
- Isn't having to send every worker to mine separately from its construction an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than a single building an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than 12 units an attention tax?
Just playing the devil's advocate here since I'm happy to see these awful faux-macro mechanics go (Mules, chronoboost or even injects aren't real macro). However, I do not agree that the reason they're bad is because they are attention taxes.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
Stop sitting on the keyboard!
Still waiting on you to elaborate on your mentioning of Brood war as the game that has no "attention taxes"?
- Isn't having to send every worker to mine separately from its construction an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than a single building an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than 12 units an attention tax?
Just playing the devil's advocate here since I'm happy to see these awful faux-macro mechanics go (Mules, chronoboost or even injects aren't real macro). However, I do not agree that the reason they're bad is because they are attention taxes.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
Stop sitting on the keyboard!
Still waiting on you to elaborate on your mentioning of Brood war as the game that has no "attention taxes"?
- Isn't having to send every worker to mine separately from its construction an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than a single building an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than 12 units an attention tax?
Just playing the devil's advocate here since I'm happy to see these awful faux-macro mechanics go (Mules, chronoboost or even injects aren't real macro). However, I do not agree that the reason they're bad is because they are attention taxes.
Pretty much, I think they're horrible as well but I also think something needs to be there. I'd rather have inject then nothing, I'll put it that way.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
Doom not a classic - Bob is talking out of his ass and will continue talking whilst you feed him.
Doom's a classic not because of amazing gameplay, is that better? Please don't say it is because comparing doom to quake is horrendous. The only reason it's a classic is it's arguably the first real multiplayer fps. People don't line up on twitch to watch doom, they will argue that it's gameplay is genre defining (it isn't, Wolfenstein deserves that title).
Stop sitting on the keyboard!
Still waiting on you to elaborate on your mentioning of Brood war as the game that has no "attention taxes"?
- Isn't having to send every worker to mine separately from its construction an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than a single building an attention tax?
- Isn't not being able to select more than 12 units an attention tax?
Just playing the devil's advocate here since I'm happy to see these awful faux-macro mechanics go (Mules, chronoboost or even injects aren't real macro). However, I do not agree that the reason they're bad is because they are attention taxes.
I really don't care.
Oh everyone knew that a while ago. Out of interest, what compels someone who has likely never played the game a decent amount to post in favour of removing something relevant to the series (attention taxes in this case)
ive been watching maximusblack 7 gate warp prism off of 2 base with stalkers and zealots for 2 days now..
that 9 range pickup is a 200g blink timing. i feel like it should be an upgrade from the robo bay so that it can't be combined with charge or adept shield timings.
in fact, i feel like the 2s warp in should be an upgrade too bc it hits hard and fast and terran don't have the minerals, zerg doesnt have the larva to produce a meaningful reaction if they are on the map.
The main issue with the macro mechanics in SC2 is that they're kinda in an unhappy medium. Tough enough to be necessary and take effort, but not tough enough that it feels skillful. For example, it's impressive when a BW player pumps goliaths out of 10+ factories, but I roll my eyes when commentators try to hype me up when a terran spams 10 mules on a mineral line.
Blizzard has three choices:
1. Make macro mechanics challenging so it's more impressive to watch.
2. Design macro so there's more player choice involved, because it's the bare minimum right now.
3. Design macro so that it encourages player interaction, similar to how Mobas have players fight over last hits.
On August 23 2015 00:31 BluemoonSC wrote: ive been watching maximusblack 7 gate warp prism off of 2 base with stalkers and zealots for 2 days now..
that 9 range pickup is a 200g blink timing. i feel like it should be an upgrade from the robo bay so that it can't be combined with charge or adept shield timings.
in fact, i feel like the 2s warp in should be an upgrade too bc it hits hard and fast and terran don't have the minerals, zerg doesnt have the larva to produce a meaningful reaction if they are on the map.
Another option is they can change the warp-in time on the warp prism back to what it was.
RE: range pickup, I kinda hope they drop it. Drop micro is strong without it. Allowing the warp prism to pickup from range just reduces counterplay.
the moba comparison a lot of people make is so painful for me. you cannot compare last hitting to anything other than constantly making workers the moment one pops because both produce money.
what im confused about is how allegedly korean players wanted this change but foreign players are the only ones speaking out about their displeasure. i wanna know why the disconnect exists
On August 23 2015 00:31 BluemoonSC wrote: ive been watching maximusblack 7 gate warp prism off of 2 base with stalkers and zealots for 2 days now..
that 9 range pickup is a 200g blink timing. i feel like it should be an upgrade from the robo bay so that it can't be combined with charge or adept shield timings.
in fact, i feel like the 2s warp in should be an upgrade too bc it hits hard and fast and terran don't have the minerals, zerg doesnt have the larva to produce a meaningful reaction if they are on the map.
Another option is they can change the warp-in time on the warp prism back to what it was.
RE: range pickup, I kinda hope they drop it. Drop micro is strong without it. Allowing the warp prism to pickup from range just reduces counterplay.
nah i like the 2s warp in for defensive purposes bc terran players could just stim and murder your warp ins before they made it out.
but yeah the range pickup is ridiculous. you can't even target the warp prism with a queen bc the range on pickup is larger than the queen range IIRC. you either have to snap it immediately when it enters your base or you['re gonna get fucked
On August 23 2015 00:44 BluemoonSC wrote: what im confused about is how allegedly korean players wanted this change but foreign players are the only ones speaking out about their displeasure. i wanna know why the disconnect exists
On August 23 2015 00:44 BluemoonSC wrote: nah i like the 2s warp in for defensive purposes bc terran players could just stim and murder your warp ins before they made it out.
On August 23 2015 00:37 Quineotio wrote: Another option is they can change the warp-in time on the warp prism back to what it was.
On August 23 2015 00:44 BluemoonSC wrote: nah i like the 2s warp in for defensive purposes bc terran players could just stim and murder your warp ins before they made it out.
On August 23 2015 00:44 BluemoonSC wrote: nah i like the 2s warp in for defensive purposes bc terran players could just stim and murder your warp ins before they made it out.
On August 23 2015 00:37 Quineotio wrote: Another option is they can change the warp-in time on the warp prism back to what it was.
Imagine a mechanic where you have to press the 7 key every 20 seconds, or you lose 100 minerals. Press the 7 key and you keep the minerals, but get distracted or forget and you lose them. Is it really fair to call this a mechanic that has anything to do with skill? It doesn't add anything to the game interesting in terms of decision making or skill. There's nothing strategically or even mechanically impressive about being to press a key regularly. Real skill should be demonstrated in strategy, macro mechanics which involve meaningful decisions (such as whether to mine minerals or gas, how many workers to make, building placement), and micro, not by spamming keys regularly.
On August 23 2015 01:04 jazzbassmatt wrote: Imagine a mechanic where you have to press the 7 key every 20 seconds, or you lose 100 minerals. Press the 7 key and you keep the minerals, but get distracted or forget and you lose them. Is it really fair to call this a mechanic that has anything to do with skill? It doesn't add anything to the game interesting in terms of decision making or skill. There's nothing strategically or even mechanically impressive about being to press a key regularly. Real skill should be demonstrated in strategy, macro mechanics which involve meaningful decisions (such as whether to mine minerals or gas, how many workers to make, building placement), and micro, not by spamming keys regularly.
Why do people always focus on 'spamming keys'. Macro players are not impressive because they can spam keys, it's because they have the mental fortitude to find time to macro more than others while still controlling everything else. It is most definitely impressive and calling it spamming is really dumb, as you should look at it as a total package.
Besides, a lot of micro could also be classified as ' spamming keys'. It's just a really dumb way to look at things. It's about the results of the actions and how difficult it is to execute them, not button presses.
game pacing feels awesome, reminds me more of BW than any other game since
People need to stop spreading this myth. The current pacing of the game has very little to do with the BW pacing as BW income rate was much much higher in the late game and there was much less army trading going on in BW early game and midgame than in LOTV atm.
The pacing is very very far off from what it was in BW.
While I haven't played all that much of lotv's most recent patch there was a ton of action happening early and mid game in broodwar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDj0DkFYAEA
for example
You haven't watched that much BW over the last couple of years have you? Otherwise you probably wouldn't list one of the best BW games ever (in my opinion - I watched that game 2-3 or times previouslyt) in order to make it appear as the "typical BW" game. With this type of logic you could also make the case that Swarm Host games are actionpacked as the outliar.
But yes TvZ was the most actionpacked matchup in BW. It's the only matchup where the stable opener contain harassment play into frequent army trading (Muta harass and bio follow to pressure zerg bases). TvP = Very passive until late game. Occationally you see 1 base pressure like Reaver drops or Marine/tank pressure, but usally it goes late game with little army trading until then. PvZ = Pretty passive early game (i don't really consider corsairs killing overlords as "real" harassment). ZvZ = No defenders advantage so obviously this contains short and bad games. PvP = Okay'ish. TvT = Passive.
LOTV on the other hand is designed around "overpowered harass" units which makes for frequent action. However, the game also suffers heavily from a lack of defenders advantage and is very snowbally with the current pace of the game. So often time the game will be decided after the early midgame, which is very much unlike BW.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
BW hasn't been played in any other country besides South Korea for over 10 years. There can be various cultural reasons for why BW is played in Korea today. From what I gathered, the majority of South Koreans also never played alot of 1v1 in BW, instead it was mostly custom games.
Point is that there is little reason to expect that mechanics for the sake of mechanics (that doesn't interact with the opponent) can work today and in the near future. All other succesful games are removing unncesary complications in the design proces.
Starcraft 2 and starcraft broodwar, smash melee and smash 4, cs go and cs source are the only games I can think of which feature one sequel making dramatic changes to the mechanical skill in each. Sc2 is on life support from blizzards wallet, smash 4 I seriously, seriously doubt will last as long a melee, and cs go which reintroduced mechanics from cs 1.6 has had an enormous recovery after they did so.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
Your comment demonstrate that you haven't yet properly understood what this discussion is about. It's not about whether a game has a specific mechanic or not, but whether the game allows you to focus on the player vs player interaction. Is that the case in CS:GO? Yes! You go out and shoot other people. You don't have to make a repetitive exercise every 20th second that prevents you from interacting with your opponent.
That's why multiplayer games become succesful. Because you play vs the opponent. In singleplayer you play vs the computer. Larva inject = playing vs the computer.
BW was 18 years ago a revolution in the multiplayer aspect. However today we can see that despite the innovations, alot of the stuff it contained is ancient today. It's like the first iPhone. It was brilliant back then, but let's be real, there are much better alternatives out there today.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
Prett sure the amount of people who regularly play League of Legends in South Korea compared to the people who regularly play 1v1 BW is extremely much in favor of the former.
You're right I haven't seen all that much in the last couple of years, I've been watching the occasional sonic starleague match but nothing too heavy.
That said I remember quite a lot of harras in tvp, depending on who was playing pvz and whether the zerg was hydra busting/ lurker containing there was a good amount of action in pvz, zvz was the worst matchup no disagreement from me, and tvt varied a lot imo, there were games like this which were pretty intensive.
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote: Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
BW hasn't been played in any other country besides South Korea for over 10 years. There can be various cultural reasons for why BW is played in Korea today. From what I gathered, the majority of South Koreans also never played alot of 1v1 in BW, instead it was mostly custom games.
Point is that there is little reason to expect that mechanics for the sake of mechanics (that doesn't interact with the opponent) can work today and in the near future. All other succesful games are removing unncesary complications in the design proces.
Starcraft 2 and starcraft broodwar, smash melee and smash 4, cs go and cs source are the only games I can think of which feature one sequel making dramatic changes to the mechanical skill in each. Sc2 is on life support from blizzards wallet, smash 4 I seriously, seriously doubt will last as long a melee, and cs go which reintroduced mechanics from cs 1.6 has had an enormous recovery after they did so.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
BW was 18 years ago a revolution in the multiplayer aspect. However today we can see that despite the innovations, alot of the stuff it contained is ancient today. It's like the first iPhone. It was brilliant back then, but let's be real, there are much better alternatives out there today.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
Prett sure the amount of people who regularly play League of Legends in South Korea compared to the people who regularly play 1v1 BW is extremely much in favor of the former.
Well yeh no shit more people play league now then broodwar lol.
I seriously, seriously disagree with the previous statement. No rts has ever come close to being broodwars better.
Personally i hope they would not simplify the macro part of the game. I think it´s awesome when you see someone keeping up with injects and always having units to fight the 4m constant attack from terran. It´s not amazing to see someone do great micro. It´s amazing to see someone having great micro and macro! I know you can argue that having to macro less makes for a better micro but i don´t think the game should be all micro an no macro. Let´s see how things go but at the moment i am a bit hesitant about the direction blizzard is moving.
On August 23 2015 01:40 Hider wrote: You haven't watched that much BW over the last couple of years have you? Otherwise you probably wouldn't list one of the best BW games ever (in my opinion - I watched that game 2-3 or times previouslyt) in order to make it appear as the "typical BW" game. With this type of logic you could also make the case that Swarm Host games are actionpacked as the outliar.
But yes TvZ was the most actionpacked matchup in BW. It's the only matchup where the stable opener contain harassment play into frequent army trading (Muta harass and bio follow to pressure zerg bases). TvP = Very passive until late game. Occationally you see 1 base pressure like Reaver drops or Marine/tank pressure, but usally it goes late game with little army trading until then. PvZ = Pretty passive early game (i don't really consider corsairs killing overlords as "real" harassment). ZvZ = No defenders advantage so obviously this contains short and bad games. PvP = Okay'ish. TvT = Passive.
LOTV on the other hand is designed around "overpowered harass" units which makes for frequent action. However, the game also suffers heavily from a lack of defenders advantage and is very snowbally with the current pace of the game. So often time the game will be decided after the early midgame, which is very much unlike BW.
On August 23 2015 01:52 Hider wrote: Your comment demonstrate that you haven't yet properly understood what this discussion is about. It's not about whether a game has a specific mechanic or not, but whether the game allows you to focus on the player vs player interaction. Is that the case in CS:GO? Yes! You go out and shoot other people. You don't have to make a repetitive exercise every 20th second that prevents you from interacting with your opponent.
That's why multiplayer games become succesful. Because you play vs the opponent. In singleplayer you play vs the computer. Larva inject = playing vs the computer.
BW was 18 years ago a revolution in the multiplayer aspect. However today we can see that despite the innovations, alot of the stuff it contained is ancient today. It's like the first iPhone. It was brilliant back then, but let's be real, there are much better alternatives out there today.
And obviously not every korean played 1v1, but enough had to to get as good as they did, and plenty of people played brood war in america/europe. A majority of sc2 pro's came from a brood war background even.
Prett sure the amount of people who regularly play League of Legends in South Korea compared to the people who regularly play 1v1 BW is extremely much in favor of the former.
Your two points here are connected. Firstly the LOTV design based around "overpowered harass" units and secondly the player vs computer and player vs player argument.
Let's actually compare SC2:LOTV now and BW in the early 2000s. Brood War was more action based early game because of the strength of harass units and maps. We are talking about the era of Intotherain and Boxer here. Things like Legionnaire's 70 reaver kill game, Boxer's dropship tank micro, or Yellow's lurker drops. I can cite old VODs like these or Boxer highlight clips
These harass styles were very skillful though for their time because of one major thing. The player vs computer elements were a massively limiting factor for everyone. Microing a tank into a dropship was a major chore especially while trying to juggle even 1 or 2 base macro back at home. Currently microing a sieged tank medivac combo in LOTV is trivial for those 2 reasons. The player vs computer element of microing has been near removed via the engine improvements and because we aren't changing the engine at all, we should neglect issues in that area. Then we should therefore compensate and increase the player vs computer elements in macro by ramping up the difficulty there while not making it overly punishing as the HOTS macro mechanics were. I think the design ideas are closer to Brood War than we actually think. Perhaps I'm wrong and after 200+ more games in LOTV I'll see that but currently I think we may be close to something good.
Also maps in LOTV suck so hard they definitely favor these harass styles.
On August 23 2015 01:04 jazzbassmatt wrote: Imagine a mechanic where you have to press the 7 key every 20 seconds, or you lose 100 minerals. Press the 7 key and you keep the minerals, but get distracted or forget and you lose them. Is it really fair to call this a mechanic that has anything to do with skill? It doesn't add anything to the game interesting in terms of decision making or skill. There's nothing strategically or even mechanically impressive about being to press a key regularly. Real skill should be demonstrated in strategy, macro mechanics which involve meaningful decisions (such as whether to mine minerals or gas, how many workers to make, building placement), and micro, not by spamming keys regularly.
Why do people always focus on 'spamming keys'. Macro players are not impressive because they can spam keys, it's because they have the mental fortitude to find time to macro more than others while still controlling everything else. It is most definitely impressive and calling it spamming is really dumb, as you should look at it as a total package.
Besides, a lot of micro could also be classified as ' spamming keys'. It's just a really dumb way to look at things. It's about the results of the actions and how difficult it is to execute them, not button presses.
Injecting larvae is literally spamming keys regularly. 5 shift +E Q mouse1 Q mouse1 Q mouse 1, and that's it. Finding more time to spam keys regularly because they're more efficient elsewhere is not really that impressive.
Micro, unlike these "macro mechanics," actually involves positioning and responding to your opponent. Any micro that is simply "hit X" or you're punished (similar to lotv immortals) has the same problem and is just as uninteresting.
Many of the game's core macro mechanics--expanding, worker creation, resource distribution, building placement, and so on--actually are really great and involve a lot of strategy, even if it's mechanical as well. Even chronoboost and mules occasionally have interesting and effective uses, although they can at times can at times be repetitive. Larvae inject, however, does not.
On August 23 2015 01:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 23 2015 01:04 jazzbassmatt wrote: Imagine a mechanic where you have to press the 7 key every 20 seconds, or you lose 100 minerals. Press the 7 key and you keep the minerals, but get distracted or forget and you lose them. Is it really fair to call this a mechanic that has anything to do with skill? It doesn't add anything to the game interesting in terms of decision making or skill. There's nothing strategically or even mechanically impressive about being to press a key regularly. Real skill should be demonstrated in strategy, macro mechanics which involve meaningful decisions (such as whether to mine minerals or gas, how many workers to make, building placement), and micro, not by spamming keys regularly.
Why do people always focus on 'spamming keys'. Macro players are not impressive because they can spam keys, it's because they have the mental fortitude to find time to macro more than others while still controlling everything else. It is most definitely impressive and calling it spamming is really dumb, as you should look at it as a total package.
Besides, a lot of micro could also be classified as ' spamming keys'. It's just a really dumb way to look at things. It's about the results of the actions and how difficult it is to execute them, not button presses.
Injecting larvae is literally spamming keys regularly. 5 shift +E Q mouse1 Q mouse1 Q mouse 1, and that's it. Finding more time to spam keys regularly because they're more efficient elsewhere is not really that impressive.
Micro, unlike these "macro mechanics," actually involves positioning and responding to your opponent. Any micro that is simply "hit X" or you're punished (similar to lotv immortals) has the same problem and is just as uninteresting.
Many of the game's core macro mechanics--expanding, worker creation, resource distribution, building placement, and so on--actually are really great and involve a lot of strategy, even if it's mechanical as well. Even chronoboost and mules occasionally have interesting and effective uses, although they can at times can at times be repetitive. Larvae inject, however, does not.
There is no difference between worker creation and using spawn larva. Except worker creation can be stacked and is even less impressive. In fact they are literally the same thing except larva can create anything instead of a nexus/CC which just creates a worker. Expanding in lotv also doesn't seem as strategic. You HAVE to do it, at least in HotS you could make the decision to stay on two base longer and do more dedicated all ins, where as LotV heavily emphasizes constant expansion.
Microing a tank into a dropship was a major chore especially while trying to juggle even 1 or 2 base macro back at home.
A better approach - and the one that LOTV is close too imo - is making the skillcap of harass high enough by itself - so you can actually outplay your opponent.
That's why macromechanics pehraps were a neccesity in WOL and HOTS as there simply weren't enough other things to do to make the mechanical skillcap high enough, but I think LOTV has added enough new micro, harass and multitaskopportunites for that to be enough to seperate player skill in itself.
Currently microing a sieged tank medivac combo in LOTV is trivial for those 2 reasons.
What? The skillcap of medivac + siege tank pickup is close to infinitive. Whenever I watch pro players I keep thinking that they are miles away from reaching the potential of abusing medivacs and tanks properly. Now add in Liberators into the picture which requires indiviudal micro and add in the need to dodge enemy skillshots/AOE-abilities and the skillcap is there.
It was already there in HOTS for bio play. Mules barely took any mechanics to execute, but the opportunities for micro and constant multitasking was high enough in itself that the macro part could be relatively easy (at least you almost never had to go back to base). For zerg that obviously wasn't the case in HOTS, but it seems to be closer to that in LOTV.
Microing a tank into a dropship was a major chore especially while trying to juggle even 1 or 2 base macro back at home.
A better approach - and the one that LOTV is close too imo - is making the skillcap of harass high enough by itself - so you can actually outplay your opponent.
That's why macromechanics pehraps were a neccesity in WOL and HOTS as there simply weren't enough other things to do to make the mechanical skillcap high enough, but I think LOTV has added enough new micro, harass and multitaskopportunites for that to be enough to seperate player skill in itself.
Currently microing a sieged tank medivac combo in LOTV is trivial for those 2 reasons.
What? The skillcap of medivac + siege tank pickup is close to infinitive. Whenever I watch pro players I keep thinking that they are miles away from reaching the potential of abusing medivacs and tanks properly. Now add in Liberators into the picture which requires indiviudal micro and add in the need to dodge enemy skillshots/AOE-abilities and the skillcap is there.
It was already there in HOTS for bio play. Mules barely took any mechanics to execute, but the opportunities for micro and constant multitasking was high enough in itself that the macro part could be relatively easy (at least you almost never had to go back to base). For zerg that obviously wasn't the case in HOTS, but it seems to be closer to that in LOTV.
I agree, harassment is awesome and is a gigantic part of what makes Starcraft awesome to watch and if the developers are going to really strengthen anything about the viewership potential of the game it should be allowing harassment to as you said allow you to straight up outplay your opponent.
Still, it's not the ONLY thing that makes Starcraft awesome and those things can't be ignored, I still think Blizzard needs to adjust the starting worker count to 10 to allow a bit of scouting and opening build room breathability, Cyclones still need to be...I don't know, less terrible? And Ultralisks are still overpowered vs. bio and I'm sick of playing Zerg vs. Mech xD
Still, it's not the ONLY thing that makes Starcraft awesome and those things can't be ignored, I
Another thing I enjoy about Starcraft is the "experimentation"-proces. Working on new builds, trying out different compositions. For instance i enjoyed playing terran yesterday as I was trying to figure out when to get Orbital commands and how to make new builds.
However, generally Blizzard are just awfull at rewarding this type of strategic diversity. Instead build orders are too often about "use a build that makes it possible for you to survive against stupid shit". I want builds to be less related to "I am gonna kill my opponent with this build" and more about "I am gonna gain a small advantage with this build".
Microing a tank into a dropship was a major chore especially while trying to juggle even 1 or 2 base macro back at home.
A better approach - and the one that LOTV is close too imo - is making the skillcap of harass high enough by itself - so you can actually outplay your opponent.
That's why macromechanics pehraps were a neccesity in WOL and HOTS as there simply weren't enough other things to do to make the mechanical skillcap high enough, but I think LOTV has added enough new micro, harass and multitaskopportunites for that to be enough to seperate player skill in itself.
Currently microing a sieged tank medivac combo in LOTV is trivial for those 2 reasons.
What? The skillcap of medivac + siege tank pickup is close to infinitive. Whenever I watch pro players I keep thinking that they are miles away from reaching the potential of abusing medivacs and tanks properly. Now add in Liberators into the picture which requires indiviudal micro and add in the need to dodge enemy skillshots/AOE-abilities and the skillcap is there.
It was already there in HOTS for bio play. Mules barely took any mechanics to execute, but the opportunities for micro and constant multitasking was high enough in itself that the macro part could be relatively easy (at least you almost never had to go back to base). For zerg that obviously wasn't the case in HOTS, but it seems to be closer to that in LOTV.
This post pretty much sums up my feelings on the difference between hots and lotv and why removing inject/chrono/mules were necessary. With all of the harassment and engagements using the new abilities as well as the need to constantly expand and deny expansions, there is more going on and they're no longer a necessity to manage that on top of it all.
I truthfully think that anyone complaining about their removal is looking at the change in a vacuum and purely theory crafting bc the patch has barely been out 2 whole days.
Personally my zvz's have been filled with a lot more micro (roach ravager vs roach lurker) and a lot of fun! Zvt and zvp have been brutal though bc I've always been a macro zerg and very reactionary but I currently can't play that way bc I have much less larva
Finally getting to play it a bit. Loving it so far (the macro changes). One more control group, screen on the engagments. It feels so right. Though I feel like in ZvT it's quite overpowered that zerg is allowed to micro non-stop now, lol.
Microing a tank into a dropship was a major chore especially while trying to juggle even 1 or 2 base macro back at home.
A better approach - and the one that LOTV is close too imo - is making the skillcap of harass high enough by itself - so you can actually outplay your opponent.
That's why macromechanics pehraps were a neccesity in WOL and HOTS as there simply weren't enough other things to do to make the mechanical skillcap high enough, but I think LOTV has added enough new micro, harass and multitaskopportunites for that to be enough to seperate player skill in itself.
Currently microing a sieged tank medivac combo in LOTV is trivial for those 2 reasons.
What? The skillcap of medivac + siege tank pickup is close to infinitive. Whenever I watch pro players I keep thinking that they are miles away from reaching the potential of abusing medivacs and tanks properly. Now add in Liberators into the picture which requires indiviudal micro and add in the need to dodge enemy skillshots/AOE-abilities and the skillcap is there.
It was already there in HOTS for bio play. Mules barely took any mechanics to execute, but the opportunities for micro and constant multitasking was high enough in itself that the macro part could be relatively easy (at least you almost never had to go back to base). For zerg that obviously wasn't the case in HOTS, but it seems to be closer to that in LOTV.
Increasing the skill cap for harass might be okay but I don't really see the evidence for that promoting interesting gameplay in the Starcraft 2 engine. I understand what you mean though. To make a Brood War comparison, you are suggesting we push everything towards a 2 hatch mutalisk style where macro takes the back seat compared to the highly intensive mutalisk aggression. That's fine but I've yet to see anything in SC2 that mimics that interesting interaction.
Tank medivac is akin to a 2 hatch mutalisk style except the mutalisks always turn and fire at the perfect timing and you don't have to master the deceleration/turn speed aspect at all. To make this more clear I would split up the word execution into 2 components. The first would be attention and the second would be mastery over a unit. Yeah the skill cap is infinite because you can always be watching your mutalisks and attack moving stuff more but the mastery over the unit is trivial.
edit: Did you consider Thor Drops in the WOL beta non-trivial as well?
I feel like the moment you put auto-cast on Inject, you admit that there's no decision in using the ability and at that point it should just be removed. I do however think there's decision making in the process and think there are better ways to make macro easier for Zerg. Say if you can stack multiple Injects on top of each other and they just wait in queue. Maybe a decrease in Overlord build time?
On August 22 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: Time to ditch Terran and pick up P or (especially) Z. Does Kimbo not realise that T cannot proactively tech switch to counter Zerg compositions because it takes a fucking long time to do build a new composition and they will likely have no upgrades. Siege tanks have received nothing but nerf after nerf since the WoL Beta.
Boohoo. Let's abandon the strongest race just because 1 unit isn't as broken as the Liberator
On August 22 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: Time to ditch Terran and pick up P or (especially) Z. Does Kimbo not realise that T cannot proactively tech switch to counter Zerg compositions because it takes a fucking long time to do build a new composition and they will likely have no upgrades. Siege tanks have received nothing but nerf after nerf since the WoL Beta.
Boohoo. Let's abandon the strongest race just because 1 unit isn't as broken as the Liberator
You only consider the Liberator broken because it's effective at doing the Siege Tank's job.
Siege Tanks are just terrible in SC2 and there's no ifs about that.
From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:
1. Macro can never be removed in the first place 2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless
1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.
2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required.
You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.
You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.
This would all be fine if they didn't have inject be autocast, and bump it up to 3 larva or so. Autocast just removes so much from the game that I'm set twiddling my thumbs. As a mechanical player, it's just not as satisfying to play Zerg anymore . Zergs are all starting to have the same, monster creep-spread. No more really differentiating yourself by being able to do both well at once.
Auto-inject also puts a big hole in proxy-hatch cheeses .
On August 23 2015 11:37 Qwyn wrote: This would all be fine if they didn't have inject be autocast, and bump it up to 3 larva or so. Autocast just removes so much from the game that I'm set twiddling my thumbs. As a mechanical player, it's just not as satisfying to play Zerg anymore . Zergs are all starting to have the same, monster creep-spread. No more really differentiating yourself by being able to do both well at once.
Auto-inject also puts a big hole in proxy-hatch cheeses .
Inject, Producing and spreading Overlords, Creep spread and ling scouting all over the map are all parts of zerg macro, and taking away Injects makes the race much easier since all the other ones are all much less impactful.
The point is not "removing macro." Many of the game's core macro mechanics are working just fine. The point is removing useless mechanics like larvae injection that don't add any meaningful decisions or strategy to the game and, if needed, replacing them with mechanics that are more than just hit X every so often.
On August 23 2015 11:49 jazzbassmatt wrote: The point is not "removing macro." Many of the game's core macro mechanics are working just fine. The point is removing useless mechanics like larvae injection that don't add any meaningful decisions or strategy to the game and, if needed, replacing them with mechanics that are more than just hit X every so often.
You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does. If you want a game based solely off of meaningful decisions, play chess or Civilization 5. Its the best game that takes no micro and is just meaningful decisions. Macro takes Micro, and those 3 things (Micro, Macro and decisions) are what make starcraft what it is.
On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote: From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:
1. Macro can never be removed in the first place 2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless
1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.
2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8
You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.
You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote: From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:
1. Macro can never be removed in the first place 2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless
1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.
2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8
You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.
You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
There is, albeit little. The reason why the two games are so big is not because of immense difficulty but because of the large casual audience. The reason why SC2 is pretty much a dead game right now is because it doesn't appeal to casuals and because it isn't immensly hard like broodwar. You either have an addicting game that people play and get enthralled when they see "professionals" going at it, or have a competitive game that brings people in because they hear about how hard the game is and how good the top players are. Not to mention, look how long the games have been out. League for 6~ years and counter strike 3~ years. So by running to league for a backup argument, you actively say that you want starcraft to appeal to and be played by casuals who don't know what they're doing.
Cs:go does have a "fight against the computer", albeit not as visible. The macro of the game would be moving around the map and setting up tactics, but the micro (fight against the computer) would be player stacking (or whatever its called when people jump on top of eachother), or the players aim. If you brought the same spirit of this argument into a cs:go forum, you would be asking that all players have aimhacks, so that the only important thing left about the game would be flanks, positioning and tactics.
You can say the same thing about league, but its kindof already so. There is Very Little ways for players to define themself as good; a lot of things in league are guaranteed. In league, it would be like asking for players to never miss CS or players to only need to press 1 button to insec an enemy player.
On August 23 2015 11:49 jazzbassmatt wrote: The point is not "removing macro." Many of the game's core macro mechanics are working just fine. The point is removing useless mechanics like larvae injection that don't add any meaningful decisions or strategy to the game and, if needed, replacing them with mechanics that are more than just hit X every so often.
You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does. If you want a game based solely off of meaningful decisions, play chess or Civilization 5. Its the best game that takes no micro and is just meaningful decisions. Macro takes Micro, and those 3 things (Micro, Macro and decisions) are what make starcraft what it is.
Injecting every 40 seconds and making a wave of marines every 25 seconds are entirely different things. The decision to make another wave of marines is situational--it involves strategy, even if the best strategy is to usually continue making marines. On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds--there's no tradeoff, such as whether to build marines or some other unit. There's pretty much no situation in which you would want to save your energy for transfusion.
Not every mechanic has to have game ending significance, but I don't think there's really any interesting skill in repeating an action every 40 seconds. Sure, it requires memory and multitasking, but there's nothing strategic about it at all. Even the other race mechanics, like chronoboost and mules, occasionally offer interesting alternatives and can vary in their use depending on the situation. But in 99% of situations, the best choice will always be to inject larvae.
On August 23 2015 11:49 jazzbassmatt wrote: The point is not "removing macro." Many of the game's core macro mechanics are working just fine. The point is removing useless mechanics like larvae injection that don't add any meaningful decisions or strategy to the game and, if needed, replacing them with mechanics that are more than just hit X every so often.
You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does. If you want a game based solely off of meaningful decisions, play chess or Civilization 5. Its the best game that takes no micro and is just meaningful decisions. Macro takes Micro, and those 3 things (Micro, Macro and decisions) are what make starcraft what it is.
Injecting every 40 seconds and making a wave of marines every 25 seconds are entirely different things. The decision to make another wave of marines is situational--it involves strategy, even if the best strategy is to usually continue making marines. On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds--there's no tradeoff, such as whether to build marines or some other unit. There's pretty much no situation in which you would want to save your energy for transfusion.
Not every mechanic has to have game ending significance, but I don't think there's really any interesting skill in repeating an action every 40 seconds. Sure, it requires memory and multitasking, but there's nothing strategic about it at all. Even the other race mechanics, like chronoboost and mules, occasionally offer interesting alternatives and can vary in their use depending on the situation. But in 99% of situations, the best choice will always be to inject larvae.
On August 23 2015 11:56 DilemaH wrote: You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does..
I do agree that maybe they can add an alternate cost for queen energy for more meaningful decisions, but its not necessary for the reason mentioned above
On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds
In the early and early mid game there's plenty of decision making for how many queens to make, as well as which sets of 25 energy go to one or more creep tumors vs injects. You can actually take ~44.4 seconds to regen 25 energy IIRC.
On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote: From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:
1. Macro can never be removed in the first place 2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless
1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.
2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8
You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.
You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
There is, albeit little. The reason why the two games are so big is not because of immense difficulty but because of the large casual audience. The reason why SC2 is pretty much a dead game right now is because it doesn't appeal to casuals and because it isn't immensly hard like broodwar. You either have an addicting game that people play and get enthralled when they see "professionals" going at it, or have a competitive game that brings people in because they hear about how hard the game is and how good the top players are. Not to mention, look how long the games have been out. League for 6~ years and counter strike 3~ years. So by running to league for a backup argument, you actively say that you want starcraft to appeal to and be played by casuals who don't know what they're doing.
Cs:go does have a "fight against the computer", albeit not as visible. The macro of the game would be moving around the map and setting up tactics, but the micro (fight against the computer) would be player stacking (or whatever its called when people jump on top of eachother), or the players aim. If you brought the same spirit of this argument into a cs:go forum, you would be asking that all players have aimhacks, so that the only important thing left about the game would be flanks, positioning and tactics.
You can say the same thing about league, but its kindof already so. There is Very Little ways for players to define themself as good; a lot of things in league are guaranteed. In league, it would be like asking for players to never miss CS or players to only need to press 1 button to insec an enemy player.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer. setting up tactics etc are not fighting against computer. aimhack is removing the precision micro, that's a world difference.
Having a fight against the computer would be something like needing to turn 360 degree every 5 seconds in order to reload a gun. All of the above you mentioned do not require you to fight against BW style poor AI or pathing and does not require you to press repetitive mechanical actions that offers very little tactics value/action.
Smash is fast and the action looks fast because the actions are visible and are MICRO. This is what SC2 is now striving for, visible mechanics rather than invisible.
Also there are a LOT of ways for players to seperate themselves in league. I suppose you don't really watch it? Faker?? League is successful because it appeal to BOTH audience, with the market big enough to cover both, while the more hardcore may enjoy Dota.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
CS:GO has you fighting against computer a lot. The guns all have invisible patterns of bullet spread that you have to memorize and alter your aim based on. You're also punished heavily for movement (your bullets won't land anywhere near your crosshair, depending on the weapon), so you have to time moving, stopping moving and shooting effectively - just those two skills alone take hundreds of hours to get truly good at. Not a CS:GO player so take it with a grain of salt, but that's how the game seemed to me - it was way more frustrating than the few other FPS games that i used to play and be good at because there were delibrate game mechanics to fuck with you a lot unless you played by specific rules.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
CS:GO has you fighting against computer a lot. The guns all have invisible patterns of bullet spread that you have to memorize and alter your aim based on. You're also punished heavily for movement (your bullets won't land anywhere near your crosshair, depending on the weapon), so you have to time moving, stopping moving and shooting effectively - just those two skills alone take hundreds of hours to get truly good at.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
Are you arguing for or against micro? Injecting is a form of macro which takes micro, so by agreeing that micro should exist, you argue that injects should exist. If you're against micro, you're against player mechanics such as aiming, waveshining, and marine splitting.
I never said that setting up tactics is fighting against the computer: thats the decision making part. Aimhack removes the precision micro, which is like removing injects from stacraft. It is a variable that, from a strategy purists point of view (which is the side you have taken) , shouldn't exist because it can alter what happens in the game and can overcome good strategy. Player skill creates variables that might alter the game and can negate strategy.
What you say about smash is true. But there are a lot of invisible things in smash: the decisions players make are all almost invisible, which is why people hate jiggs: she takes no micro, but takes a lot of decisions. but people dont see that. Its fine if some aspects are invisible in a game: and if you argue that decisions that are made by a jigglypuff are not invisible, then I dont understand why you would argue against injects being invisible.
There are ways to separate yourself in league, but a lot of things are guaranteed, limiting what you can do. Nautilus ult, Veigar ult are all guaranteed forms of damage that cannot be microed against. From a micro point of view, league is a pretty abysmal game. From a decision making point of view, it is a great game.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
CS:GO has you fighting against computer a lot. The guns all have invisible patterns of bullet spread that you have to memorize and alter your aim based on. You're also punished heavily for movement (your bullets won't land anywhere near your crosshair, depending on the weapon), so you have to time moving, stopping moving and shooting effectively - just those two skills alone take hundreds of hours to get truly good at.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
Ofc it is fighting against the computer, you aim at the enemy and you don't hit it because of the patterns the csgo devs included. Play another shooter and the bullets will go exactly where you aim, which pretty much removes this "playing against the computer" part. The difference obviously is that you still interact with the enemy while trying to control your spray.
Still, even doing the spray against a stationary object feels rewarding when you hit most bullets. Which is similar to (almost) perfect macro in a starcraft game. Remove the difficulty of any task in a game and it becomes trivial and boring, you don't feel any accomplishment.
To come back to injecting, the auto inject does exactly that, playing zerg atm feels bad. I don't think i deserve to win against terran or protoss cause i know that their macro is WAY more difficult now, it's not even close.
On August 23 2015 12:47 DilemaH wrote: Are you arguing for or against micro? Injecting is a form of macro which takes micro, so by agreeing that micro should exist, you argue that injects should exist. If you're against micro, you're against player mechanics such as aiming, waveshining, and marine splitting.
I never said that setting up tactics is fighting against the computer: thats the decision making part. Aimhack removes the precision micro, which is like removing injects from stacraft. It is a variable that, from a strategy purists point of view (which is the side you have taken) , shouldn't exist because it can alter what happens in the game and can overcome good strategy. Player skill creates variables that might alter the game and can negate strategy.
What you say about smash is true. But there are a lot of invisible things in smash: the decisions players make are all almost invisible, which is why people hate jiggs: she takes no micro, but takes a lot of decisions. but people dont see that. Its fine if some aspects are invisible in a game: and if you argue that decisions that are made by a jigglypuff are not invisible, then I dont understand why you would argue against injects being invisible.
There are ways to separate yourself in league, but a lot of things are guaranteed, limiting what you can do. Nautilus ult, Veigar ult are all guaranteed forms of damage that cannot be microed against. From a micro point of view, league is a pretty abysmal game. From a decision making point of view, it is a great game.
I am arguing against pointless and non visible mechanics. you seems to think that is equal to removing micro macro, in some ways yes, in the sense that if I were to remove a restrictions such as press T for 100times in order to a move, I would still be removing micro.
Chrono boost is lots of fun. If used too often, it has the potential to have balance implications (like requiring blink, warpgate research times to be increased) but i think it can be controlled and balanced fairly well. It improves the feeling of protoss to matter what you're doing, just very satisfying. My nexii never hit full energy before max supply, ever - and that's not particularly hard to do, as it takes like 3 game minutes for a nexus to go empty to full and you'll always be chrono boosting something.
Zerg still has queens with all of their spells. Terran still has orbitals with scan and supply drop, as well as PF's. Having a nexus just be a nexus feels overwhelming - there could be more to it, and chrono boost filled that gap very nicely.
---
Mule feels bad to me, always hated to play with it and against it. It gives a disproportionate amount of income, has a history of allowing some very abusive all-ins (anything involving worker pull, particularly rax all ins vs toss, 1-1-1 one base with all workers pulled again and again and again over a 15 minute time period, the 3rax 1depot supply drop and then pull almost all workers and reinforce under the power of mule while you have all of your workers killing the opponent) and contributes a lot to the lack of return from harassing and killing terran workers. Terran does have supply drop and scan already, which provide some interesting uses of orbital command energy and can be balanced without the mule existing. They also have PF's which are very useful for keeping a number of bases secure in the midgame.
---
Larvae inject - i agree that it was probably too powerful to be fun before, it was almost always the right choice to inject rather than to micro even when microing gave you good returns.
I've done the math. With 1 queen per hatchery in HOTS, perfect injects (counting from the time it takes for energy to regen, so 44.4 seconds per inject, not 40 seconds) the queens would give you 57.4% of your larvae. That is, putting a queen on a hatchery in HOTS would be a cost increase of +50% but a production rate increase of +135% (2.35x) which was just huge, something that no player could ever ignore and your default state for most of the game (aside from potential exceptions in the very early game) should be to have a queen injecting per hatchery.
2 larvae per inject means that from the moment the queen spawns, zerg is getting 4 larvae per minute from the hatch and 2.7 larvae per minute from the queens. In HOTS, zerg from that point had 1.4x as much larvae available per hatchery/queen combo.
My favourite solution, overall, is to increase the larvae spawn rate of the hatchery itself. You could bring larvae generation rates up, maintaining them a bit higher than they are now (though not neccesarily at the WOL/HOTS rate!) while reducing the relative dominance of the queen's larvae as it will provide a much smaller % of your overall larvae. You could even raise the larvae cap, making hatcheries continue to generate larvae naturally until they have 4, 5 or 6 larvae, which would allow weaker players to keep up and stronger players to focus elsewhere - looking away for 10 seconds instead of doing larvae things wouldn't set them behind much. They'd be missing a bit of opportunity cost from not having units/drones some seconds earlier, but they would not have this voice screaming in their ear about losing larvae forever for every second that they don't have inject running.
Supplementing that change, you could even mess with the energy cost of inject. Since it's less of an important mechanic, queens could be expected to use other spells more. Autocast might not be neccesary, since instead of queens increasing your production to 2.35x of normal, they might only increase it to 1.4x of normal - you wouldn't lose the game because you didn't pay attention to them for 20 seconds, not nearly as often - but injecting would still be beneficial.
---
It's a little funny how i'm that focused on zergy stuff as a protoss player, but that's where i feel the biggest problem (or well, furthest from optimal situation) is at the moment in terms of macro mechanics. Very few others are doing the math and posting solid stuff, so here's my attempt.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
CS:GO has you fighting against computer a lot. The guns all have invisible patterns of bullet spread that you have to memorize and alter your aim based on. You're also punished heavily for movement (your bullets won't land anywhere near your crosshair, depending on the weapon), so you have to time moving, stopping moving and shooting effectively - just those two skills alone take hundreds of hours to get truly good at.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
Ofc it is fighting against the computer, you aim at the enemy and you don't hit it because of the patterns the csgo devs included. Play another shooter and the bullets will go exactly where you aim, which pretty much removes this "playing against the computer" part. The difference obviously is that you still interact with the enemy while trying to control your spray.
Still, even doing the spray against a stationary object feels rewarding when you hit most bullets. Which is similar to (almost) perfect macro in a starcraft game. Remove the difficulty of any task in a game and it becomes trivial and boring, you don't feel any accomplishment.
To come back to injecting, the auto inject does exactly that, playing zerg atm feels bad. I don't think i deserve to win against terran or protoss cause i know that their macro is WAY more difficult now, it's not even close.
I suppose if that is considered as fighting against computer, that would mean a hero vision radius and turn rate are part of fighting against computer? Also lots of shooter have bullet spread...and it is simply part of characters of the gun, bullet spread, reload speed, movement speed etc
On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote: From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:
1. Macro can never be removed in the first place 2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless
1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.
2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8
You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.
You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.
BW is your argument? BW had no macro mechanics. Look at popular esports games like LoL, CS:GO. No macro.
If want to play against to computer, I suggest Diablo 3.
Actually, it is possible to imagine SC2 with no macro. Suppose the game can be perfectly controlled with your mind. In that case, would SC2 cease to be popular, cease to be hard, cease to be impressive? No, no and no. In that case, winning in the game would be entirely based on strategy.
On August 23 2015 12:47 DilemaH wrote: Are you arguing for or against micro? Injecting is a form of macro which takes micro, so by agreeing that micro should exist, you argue that injects should exist. If you're against micro, you're against player mechanics such as aiming, waveshining, and marine splitting.
Injecting does not take micro...unless you think moving a chess piece or selecting a civ dropdown takes "micro," there's pretty much no micro involved. More 'micro' was involved in writing this post than will be used in an entire game's worth of larvae injects.
I don´t know how people consider injecting not a visible part of the game. No injects equals no units. Great injects equals the swarm! I feel like injects allow players to really shine with their mechanics and clearly is a visible skill to me.
i wanted to post these two paragraphs i put into the recent survey on the macro changes patch. i had some thoughts i figured were worth sharing. this is just kinda brainstorming so don't pitchfork me, b/c they are a bit out there, and i'm kinda liking the sound of these:
on macro mechanics:
increasing zerg's larva rate and per hatch natural cap might be the solution as opposed to auto-casting. i would like to see this tested and have the queen simply heal and creep. then ofc go from there. unsure on whether or not weaker macro mechanics should return. some different ones might be in order like terran drop pod marines or protoss portal like a nydus. not macro mechanics per se, but maybe offensive or even defensive macro battle mechanics... i might have gone too far lol... (or is it perfect?) (added post: they are considering the photon overcharge to kinda do something like that. while defensive that could be a battlefield thing...)
on the aug 21 community feedback post:
it's interesting that they took seriously the auto-build idea. this is something that was likely meant as a "slippery slope" kind of thing. and tbh, they could implement it in a way around what they had seen as the error, not that i would want this necessarily. dawn of war 1 had this function, and i think dawn of war 2, and plenty of other great RTS games. this doesn't exactly hinder any kind of play, and managing it wouldn't necessarily be the noobiest thing you could add. that being said it should likely be similar to auto-repair, or interceptors and charge, and off by default. only 1 unit should be able to be auto-built, and zerg would need a unit menu on the hatchery. i know... i can't believe i'm realistically thinking about this....
not on the survey, i also want to add that i think it will be most important to implement miss chance uphill. there is no practical reason to not have a realistic (and visually clear) high ground advantage. dota 2 has it, and is not suffering one bit for it. we should exactly copy the %25 random. any other way could be predictable removes the high ground advantage. that is probably the most important future item for me right now.
dota 2 has it, and is not suffering one bit for it. we should exactly copy the %25 random
In sc2 if you have vision of a unit on high ground, you can weigh up interactions and make decisions based on how much damage you would deal/take - if it's random to some extent, small exchanges would be much more coinflippy. When you're firing 30 attacks, missing 25% of them isn't a problem - but when you attack twice, you'd have a 1 in 16 chance of doing literally 0 damage with those odds
the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Exactly! I hated to spend so much time with injects (and watching my base) -> it leads too very passive playstyle because injects is/was the most important "job" at zerg. Now you have more time to think which units/strategie and you scout alot more.
I'd rather blizzard completely removed auto casting on the queen (as that is the most terrible solution there can possibly be), and instead look to another solution if they really want to remove mechanical difficulty.
How about a drone being able to become a building attached to a hatchery after the spawning pool is made, which doubles larva production (some random number) and facilitates the building of queens from that hatchery. That way there'd be some decision making that needed to be done, queens would be made expressly for transfuses/fighting/creep spread and not just wasted supply to make more units. And it would still require some macro management at each base, particularly as harass is becoming more powerful.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
There seems to be a fundamental difference in what people wan´t from SC2. Neither is better than the other but simplifying macro will change the game that is for sure. I don´t really like every game trying to be like Dota. If i liked Dota more i would watch/play Dota. Theres a reason why i prefer Sc2 and making it more like other popular games is something that worries me.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
We realy need the comeback of these macro mechanics, the game is just destroy now; is no more the great SC2 game, So slow, No eco, no fun, no heart and soul this patch is the worst thing ever who happens to Starcraft
I really hope they will remake chronoboost, mules and inject, they just cant do that after 5 years, its non sense and there no hope for a starcraft without that, just delete this patch...
Give a second rally point to nexus and cc's for auto-chronoboosting on a single building and auto-dropping mule's on a single mineral line with a fixed cooldown should simplify macro mechanics a lot without change meta that much. Good or bad suggestion?
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
40 apm when there's no action going on? There's actually no way you're doing every thing you need to do then suddenly spike to 200 apm during a 5 second engagement lol
played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
I was surprised to see Taeja streaming Legacy of the Void today. Unfortunately for me I was only able to catch his last game. I tell you, it was INTENSE! I am eagerly awaiting more pro players showcasing Legacy of the Void.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
On August 23 2015 20:38 mishimaBeef wrote: I've said this before and I'll say it again.
1) Take every single tournament game ever played in front of a live audience.
2) Analyze the times where "OHHH!" and "AHHH!" came from the crowd.
3) Design towards that.
I believe Blizzard has been doing a good job and continues to do a good job in Legacy.
If I may make an analogy; you're advocating the Slamball approach.
Let's take a game that has downtime where players need to spend time positioning/passing the ball (injecting/macroing) and eliminate that so all we have is action and micro:
Somehow this new game is better than the old? I don't see it.
Lol wut? Arbitrary analogy. If anything I would say that game "slamball" has less action. The players have to spend a long time powering up on a "jump pad". Real basketball has way more action.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
40 apm when there's no action going on? There's actually no way you're doing every thing you need to do then suddenly spike to 200 apm during a 5 second engagement lol
yes if no action except brainless injects/macro. With my wc3 background, i do microing my units a lot.
mishimaBeef wrote: I've said this before and I'll say it again.
1) Take every single tournament game ever played in front of a live audience.
2) Analyze the times where "OHHH!" and "AHHH!" came from the crowd.
3) Design towards that.
But arent these "OHHH's" and "AHHH's" happening because we see something that doesnt occur every 30 seconds? Games, sometimes a whole series builds up towards these moments. You may be right I cant tell, but I could also see constant crowds/casters going crazy become boring very fast. Its just not special anymore at some point.
mishimaBeef wrote: I've said this before and I'll say it again.
1) Take every single tournament game ever played in front of a live audience.
2) Analyze the times where "OHHH!" and "AHHH!" came from the crowd.
3) Design towards that.
But arent these "OHHH's" and "AHHH's" happening because we see something that doesnt occur every 30 seconds? Games, sometimes a whole series builds up towards these moments. You may be right I cant tell, but I could also see constant crowds/casters going crazy become boring very fast. Its just not special anymore at some point.
It's al relative, even if there is constant action (which is good) there are moments which are special for its environment. CSGO is a good example. Lot's of constant action because of its design, but clutches are still a highlight. http://oddshot.tv/shot/esl-csgo-20150823123242210
Well its the nature of the game(CSGO) that players kill each other. Still for my taste I dont take the entertainment out of that or call that constant action that makes me watch it. Just because its kills doesnt mean its great to watch. The entertainment for me comes of tense situations, close matches, huge turnarounds and the basic build up of the matchup that finishes in an exciting way. I mean its just not fair comparing both games and saying one is way more action packed and therfor better, when for me as a casual viewer ~85% of the kills are like seeing a scouting scv die... And no I dont wanna talk anything bad. I think its good that most parts are average. Just has to be the right mix.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
Great, glad you enjoy it, and I can personally vouch that your experience in this matter trumps everyone else (I recognise the irony).
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
40 apm when there's no action going on? There's actually no way you're doing every thing you need to do then suddenly spike to 200 apm during a 5 second engagement lol
yes if no action except brainless injects/macro. With my wc3 background, i do microing my units a lot.
Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now). So with that said, assuming you hotkey your base/camera key your base/click on your map, theres one action, a hotkey for your queen/click it, theres another, click/hotkey the inject button, click on the hatch, for a total of 4 apm per 20 seconds, that leaves you with ~ 12 apm per hatch you have. So unless your macro consists of 3 hatches, no unit production, no creep spread, no tech research, no extra hatcheries built, no upgrades etc then it's not possible to have even midgame macro ( 4-7 minutes for 3 hatches on average excluding zvz which is wonky) with 40 apm.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
Great, glad you enjoy it, and I can personally vouch that your experience in this matter trumps everyone else (I recognise the irony).
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
40 apm when there's no action going on? There's actually no way you're doing every thing you need to do then suddenly spike to 200 apm during a 5 second engagement lol
yes if no action except brainless injects/macro. With my wc3 background, i do microing my units a lot.
Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now). So with that said, assuming you hotkey your base/camera key your base/click on your map, theres one action, a hotkey for your queen/click it, theres another, click/hotkey the inject button, click on the hatch, for a total of 4 apm per 20 seconds, that leaves you with ~ 12 apm per hatch you have. So unless your macro consists of 3 hatches, no unit production, no creep spread, no tech research, no extra hatcheries built, no upgrades etc then it's not possible to have even midgame macro ( 4-7 minutes for 3 hatches on average excluding zvz which is wonky) with 40 apm.
Yeah I think 40 apm is way too low for Zerg macro lol. I'm pretty sure that's like 1 hands worth for me
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
Opening with 6marines does exactly that. I understand how to defend that stuff (though no clue how you are supposed to defend 4gate prism adept...), I don't understand what the cyclone is supposed to do.
As a comparison, think about what happens when you have only a single queen to defend your mineralline against an oracle and the oracle just targets drones. Your fucked. Well, the cyclone does a good deal less damage than that queen. And costs a good deal more. And requires you to get double gas before expansion.
On August 24 2015 01:38 loko822 wrote: Well its the nature of the game(CSGO) that players kill each other. Still for my taste I dont take the entertainment out of that or call that constant action that makes me watch it. Just because its kills doesnt mean its great to watch. The entertainment for me comes of tense situations, close matches, huge turnarounds and the basic build up of the matchup that finishes in an exciting way. I mean its just not fair comparing both games and saying one is way more action packed and therfor better, when for me as a casual viewer ~85% of the kills are like seeing a scouting scv die... And no I dont wanna talk anything bad. I think its good that most parts are average. Just has to be the right mix.
Yes it is the nature of the game cause it is designed that way. The game is just better at creating tense situations, which is a plus. Counterstrike is simply the best designed esports game there is right now, both for the players and for the viewers. If you wanna make a new game, you can learn a lot from it if you ask me.
BTW, what if my intention is that, when the queen pops the first energy is spent on a creep tumor instead of an inject?
I just had a situation like this vs a bunker rush and the queen immediately autoinjected; a creep tumor would ve allowed me to save the situation due to better placement of the two spines. So the autoinject proper fucked this game i just had.
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
Great, glad you enjoy it, and I can personally vouch that your experience in this matter trumps everyone else (I recognise the irony).
On August 24 2015 01:12 Dingodile wrote:
On August 24 2015 00:57 BluemoonSC wrote:
On August 24 2015 00:48 Dingodile wrote:
On August 24 2015 00:27 nubHunter wrote:
On August 23 2015 23:02 bo1b wrote:
On August 23 2015 20:14 nubHunter wrote: the game is better without macro mechanics, the time/apm wasted using chrono, inject larva and mules during battle will be used for a more spectacular micro, thats what makes the game funny to play and watch, not the fucking macro mechanincs.
Please just play dota instead.
i have 200+ apm, i can macro in sc2 very decent, but i prefer use that apm and camera time on my army, thanks.
200+ is way too much for macro. I play zerg with 40apm and I barely missing any inject until Lategame. Funny things is when I have a fight, it goes over 250apm only for that 5sec fight.
40 apm when there's no action going on? There's actually no way you're doing every thing you need to do then suddenly spike to 200 apm during a 5 second engagement lol
yes if no action except brainless injects/macro. With my wc3 background, i do microing my units a lot.
Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now). So with that said, assuming you hotkey your base/camera key your base/click on your map, theres one action, a hotkey for your queen/click it, theres another, click/hotkey the inject button, click on the hatch, for a total of 4 apm per 20 seconds, that leaves you with ~ 12 apm per hatch you have. So unless your macro consists of 3 hatches, no unit production, no creep spread, no tech research, no extra hatcheries built, no upgrades etc then it's not possible to have even midgame macro ( 4-7 minutes for 3 hatches on average excluding zvz which is wonky) with 40 apm.
Yeah I think 40 apm is way too low for Zerg macro lol. I'm pretty sure that's like 1 hands worth for me
I am sorry, I dont understand you. I was talking about injects in HotS. you can injects all 45sec. Theroretically you can inject all 40sec but mana-regen from queen is too low, gaining 25 mana takes 45sec for next inject. I use 5v5v inject method.
On August 24 2015 01:53 bo1b wrote: Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now)
its every 40 seconds blizz time (hots blizz time) (technically every 44.44 seconds because thats the time to regenerate 25 energy while the time for inject larvae to pop is 40 seconds)
which translates to every 28.57 (31.71 counting regeneration rate rather than larvae pop time) seconds real time, lets round to 30 seconds
4 actions every 30 seconds = 8 apm
you can manage exactly 5 bases of proper injections with 40 apm.
On August 24 2015 01:53 bo1b wrote: Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now)
its every 40 seconds blizz time (hots blizz time) (technically every 44.44 seconds because thats the time to regenerate 25 energy while the time for inject larvae to pop is 40 seconds)
which translates to every 28.57 (31.71 counting regeneration rate rather than larvae pop time) seconds real time, lets round to 30 seconds
4 actions every 30 seconds = 8 apm
you can manage exactly 5 bases of proper injections with 40 apm.
Oh serious? I've been under the misconception that 1 second equaled 1 energy regen for the last 5 years.
I'm so very sad that they gave up on worker mining efficiency and they will not even test it. Internal testing is not enough for a change like this. Worst news since the beta came out .
On August 24 2015 01:53 bo1b wrote: Assuming by macro you only mean injecting with a queen, you can inject every 20 seconds (25 seconds blizz time, but we'll go with real time for now)
its every 40 seconds blizz time (hots blizz time) (technically every 44.44 seconds because thats the time to regenerate 25 energy while the time for inject larvae to pop is 40 seconds)
which translates to every 28.57 (31.71 counting regeneration rate rather than larvae pop time) seconds real time, lets round to 30 seconds
4 actions every 30 seconds = 8 apm
you can manage exactly 5 bases of proper injections with 40 apm.
But that's just injections lol. That's why I'm saying I don't think it's possible to do everything outside of a battle and have 40 apm.
But arent these "OHHH's" and "AHHH's" happening because we see something that doesnt occur every 30 seconds? Games, sometimes a whole series builds up towards these moments.
Those moments occur when something unexpected happens. That is typically related to an impressive outplay which is something that cannot occur with macro mechanics, but only with micro and multitasking.
But arent these "OHHH's" and "AHHH's" happening because we see something that doesnt occur every 30 seconds? Games, sometimes a whole series builds up towards these moments.
Those moments occur when something unexpected happens. That is typically related to an impressive outplay which is something that cannot occur with macro mechanics, but only with micro and multitasking.
It's only that way in sc2 because they've made macro so disgustingly easy that outside of a few exceptions there's really no reason for everyone to be pretty similar in macro capabilities.
In sc2 though, bomber is lauded as having incredible macro, taeja vs nestea where nestea took out like 65 of taejas workers and taeja had like 5-6 orbitals and was able to win the game through macro was amazing, scarlet's creep spread gave khaldor an erection every cast she was featured in, the entire 4m style was incredibly almost entirely because macroing and microing like that is extremely impressive, drg vs inno from drg's perspective was a win banked incredibly on near flawless macro and a few new things in zerg micro.
Really, just because you can't see it doesn't mean that the exciting moments aren't predicated on macro as well.
And in reality, it's because of anything impressive as well.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
Immortals are bubbles lolol. I was NOT expecting that glitch omg that's so funny. Terran feels really really weird right now without mules. It's like the timing of everything is off now . Supply drop doesn't really feel right. I honestly feel that they should just make orbitals 100 minerals and remove supply drop, because as of right now it's hard enough to justify getting OCs except for scans anyway.
I still think auto inject is the worst thing to happen to this game yet.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
This. Whilst watching one of the Koreans stream LotV, an Oracle killed at least 15 SCVs whilst being attacked by a Cyclone. It eventually died when some marines came in. The Protoss player moved it between two mineral lines making the Cyclone chase it around madly, doing almost no damage to it.
The cost of Cyclones (buildings, add ons and the unit itself) and the fact they do shit to something like an Oracle is crazy.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
This. Whilst watching one of the Koreans stream LotV, an Oracle killed at least 15 SCVs whilst being attacked by a Cyclone. It eventually died when some marines came in. The Protoss player moved it between two mineral lines making the Cyclone chase it around madly, doing almost no damage to it.
The cost of Cyclones (buildings, add ons and the unit itself) and the fact they do shit to something like an Oracle is crazy.
Sounds like a pretty standard way to balance something - first its too strong all-round, now its a little too weak against air. Next time they revisit the balance on this unit it will get a bit of a buff against air to make it ok, but not too strong. No need to throw a fit over this one.
On Protoss Feeling Gimmicky This issue is really important to me in particular. Blizzard, I know, really cares about the "fantasy" of playing each race, and that each race should feel in line with its themes. I think that the Warp Gate change is a massive step in the right direction.
I do, however, still worry about the effects that Oracles and DTs have on the game. DTs have been around since BW and it feels like too much of a shame to get rid of, even if it is good for the game. They have already received a pretty big nerf in WoL with the Dark Shrine making DTs easier to scout for than in BW (I think that was a good change, by the way!). So, instead I will focus on the Oracle.
I do think that defending against Oracles is too binary. Let's compare the Oracle and the Banshee when used against Terran when unscouted. With the Banshee, the defending player can run the workers away, save scans, and try to engage the Banshee with Marines. This dance is difficult on the defending player, and he will probably still take a lot of damage, but it is preventable with good defense. When an Oracle is unscouted, small groups of Marines cannot engage the Oracle; the Oracle is free to inflict game ending damage upon the Terran player. That's not fun for anyone. I think this is less of an issue in the other matchups because Spores are now on Spawning Pool, letting the Zerg buy time until those spores are up, and Stalkers can easily stand up to Oracles. My suggestion, therefore, is to reinstate the missile turret only requiring Barracks. I know Blizzard reverted that to encourage aggression, but when aggression is binary and frustrating, the game becomes less fun for both players.
I think there may be other areas where Protoss feels too gimmicky, but I think we need further testing to reveal that.
On Photon Overcharge I think this helps address the community's trouble with Photon Overcharge. This is not an issue I am personally very passionate about, so I will leave articulating the problems to others who are more passionate in this particular area (cough cough Jakatak cough). It is worth noting, however, that it does not address the community's complaints with the problems that arise from having so much power centralized in a single unit.
The Colossus I think a lot of people like the Colossus' art and visual design; it may be the unit that feels the most Protoss of the all, and that's cool! In HotS, however, the unit ended up in large part causing the deathball. Introducing the Disruptor as the Robotics path's splash was a great idea, and I think the new Disruptor is fun and challenging to use. But the Disruptor ended up completely replacing the Colossus, while the Colossus was nerfed staggeringly. I frankly do not like how weak the Colossus is. The Colossus' design and lore make it out to be a very powerful unit the Protoss acciently destroyed an entire race with these guys!
The Adept I think this change is really interesting, and I think it would really help with the issue that the Adept was overlapping to much with the Zealot.
The Zealot is a proud Protoss warrior, and I don't think that making it into a harass unit is the right thing to do for this long standing, loyal, and most iconic Protoss warrior. I would prefer to see a direction where the Adept is the damage and the Zealot is the tanking, and I think that better fits with each unit's identity. Many others have expressed this as well.
Carrier Interceptor I think this is a good idea to introduce the kind of micro people want that isn't too button spammy, so good one here! I think the 'following interceptors' idea posed by Lalush is worth trying as well. I think that is a better direction to go than the release interceptors ability. I think having the interceptors stay alive after the death of the carrier is very out of line with this units legacy (it really just seems wrong!), and doesn't really heighten the potential for skillful usage of this unit.
Immortal Autocast I think microing the Immortal with this new ability is actually pretty fun! But the fact that it feels necessary on top of so many other things is an issue. I think giving the option for autocast is a good idea!
Ravager Upgrade This could be interesting, however I worry about nerfing the iconic space control unit that is the siege tank. Many others have voiced the complaint that, due to lack of overkill mechanics, the units are too weak in lower numbers and too strong in larger numbers, and I think they are correct. The medivac pickup upgrade seems to be remaking the siege tank into a flying harass unit, and that direction really worries me.
Double Mining Concerns The economy system is something that I've gone back and forth on a time or two. Previously I thought that reducing the efficiency of paired workers wouldn't make much difference since race-specific macro mechanics speed up the game too much. Now that those have been removed, I think that reducing the efficiency of paired workers could be great!
The current LotV system doesn't feel very fun to me at present. It feels like I'm on a death clock, and many losses feel like this slow starving death that I can't recover from. I imagine that this is even worse for beginner players!
You say that you worry that it's too easy to recover from harass when paired workers are less efficient, but when players are expanding more they are also more vulnerable to harass! I think players having lots of opportunities for smaller pickups is much more fun than both players less opportunities for game-ending damage.
Auto-Build I'm surprised that this was even tested. The outcome seems to me that it would be clearly not-Starcraft. Of course, it's silly to be upset over a change that was only tested and not implemented, and it's great to try new things! But I feel the complaints of others in the community that the fact that this was even tested at all shows some concerns about the direction Blizzard wants to take the game...
For these last two ideas that were only tested internally, I think it would be very interesting and fun if they were released in the Beta as extension mods for custom games! For a paired-worker efficiency reduction mod, we would all have a chance to try out one of the most requested changes in the beta itself, and make our own judgement. Indeed, the change could be terrible. But it would be interesting to see Blizzard's approach to this and see what it's like, and maybe why it doesn't work! As for the auto-building, I think a lot of people could just find it fun to play around with, and it might also be really fun for newer players to play some casual games with friends!
It's true that this could slightly detract from true beta testing, but if it's just an extension mod, it will surely not gain the traction that the main ladder will.
Edit: This ended up being really long. Sorry guys. T-T
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
This. Whilst watching one of the Koreans stream LotV, an Oracle killed at least 15 SCVs whilst being attacked by a Cyclone. It eventually died when some marines came in. The Protoss player moved it between two mineral lines making the Cyclone chase it around madly, doing almost no damage to it.
The cost of Cyclones (buildings, add ons and the unit itself) and the fact they do shit to something like an Oracle is crazy.
Sounds like a pretty standard way to balance something - first its too strong all-round, now its a little too weak against air. Next time they revisit the balance on this unit it will get a bit of a buff against air to make it ok, but not too strong. No need to throw a fit over this one.
You would like to this think so. I would like to think that they can work out some of the problems a little in advance, but then I am a software developer and do a lot of analysis in my job.
Given that PB has been OP for a heck of a long time now, adept all-ins are causing rage in the T part of the community, liberators being OP in certain matches, etc ... and now they turn the apple cart upside down with the macro removal, then suggesting that Blizz are following standard balancing methods is a little naive imo.
The next balance patch will tell us, but in the meantime they need to hear the frustration that this is all causing.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
Dunno, I was recently double stargated with oracles and scouted it after the oracles were out. (Scouted double gas and invested in cyclones. I put 1 in each mineral line with a handful of marines and it did just fine making sure they couldn't harass nor get away. Maybe the Korean player got a bad read on his opponent or didn't get to scout in time, but without the need to mule, I was able to scan freely. Wasn't an issue for me.
You're right that the oracle has other unique uses but at the same time it wasn't fair that air harassment was invested in and completely shut down by a unit that the Oracle had no chance against. And its not true of the other air units in the game too, they don't all have insane utility outside of their attack.
But ultimately I don't understand why anyone would be so upset about a unit not being able to kill something it's not designed to kill without some back up. Siege tanks can lose to zerglings but does that mean blizz fucked up with the siege tank design? No, you just didn't have anything to support it.
Lock on by itself is strong if you micro bc it outranges many units and can chase them down with impunity as a result. Bring some supporting units along for the ride and you're all set.
Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful.
MSC can't shoot up.
It's 120 damage over 14 seconds. It means that they can still contribute to a range of situations without being dead weight, so you can afford to make more of them both early and late game.
On August 24 2015 01:00 Big J wrote: played a few games with terran; haha lol, terran is completely fucked on this patch. I thought with supply drops still in the game terran would have it best but man was I wrong, lol...
Also cyclones suck balls now, lol. So basically, on the last patch they behaved like a long range/hightech crappy designed unit will behave: it becomes insanely good when massed and it's a bit inefficient before that. Now it's just bad, start to end. And the antiair damage without the upgrade is a joke. 150/150/3 for the dps of a mothershipcore? Yeah right, that's going to be useful. Totally gonna open cyclones to prevent oracles, prisms, banshees and liberators wrecking me. (not) Good lord, who came up with this design... Can we please just remove it and go forward with starcraft. I'm starting to consider joining the stupid "give goliath" chants - which is like the most boring and unnecessary unit you could add to terran - just because it's probably the only chance we get to remove this piece of crap.
If you're getting it without marines, you're doing it wrong. You shouldn't be deterred from opening with air bc of a single unit killing one of yours before you even get to do dmg.
No he isn't, if an AA unit is not capable of defend from air units, then whats the fucking purpose of the unit? Its like having a viking lose vs a banshee.
Its almost like blizzard wants you to make more than one unit and reduce the number of hard counters in the game.
Its almost like the unit doesn't do its job and you will paint it over by saying that.
G2A for cyclone is really lackluster even post upgrade.
Its job isn't specifically anti air, you can read what blizzard said on the matter. They don't want people to be discouraged from going for air when cyclones are out. The game clearly is designed to have less hard counters and this is just another example of a uni like that.
You don't get discouraged from going air when your opponent invests into double gas factory/techlab opening with a 150/150 unit on one base, wtf. You see the cyclone, you don't go in. Now you got an oracle that still forces your opponent to make turrets if he ever wants to move out. It scouts everything. It can track your whole army movement. It detects. It even got another spell that if it goes off on half your army, you instantly lose in the late game. Unprobable, but for that potential it kind of has to be very unprobable.
You pretend that those air units don't do anything for you when you cannot kill your opponents economy and you pretend that those air units have to be maneuvered into the cyclone. Neither of those is correct.
Of course you got a point that maybe blizzard doesn't want the cyclone to be good antiair and that's fine with me. I don't think that the cyclone needs to be insanely good antiair and beat up combat focused air units like BCs or Voidrays as it did previously. But I believe it would be nice if it wouldn't lose 1v1 against a mothershipcore or if it killed an oracle before each and every of your SCVs was dead.
This. Whilst watching one of the Koreans stream LotV, an Oracle killed at least 15 SCVs whilst being attacked by a Cyclone. It eventually died when some marines came in.
BS.. link? I don't believe that at all Also, where were the marines at first?
while oracles can't effectively kill stalkers, i still feel it can be a pretty binary defense for protoss. Since Oracles are light, it takes over 10 real seconds (14 HOTS game seconds) for a stalker to kill one, assuming it's in range the entire time - so it takes 2-3 stalkers, sometimes even per mineral line to prevent significant damage. Being caught off guard usually involves losing a couple of workers, and then even a few more as your stalkers move into position before the fight even starts.
Oracles as a whole feel pretty all-or-nothing since their combat ability is solely based on a low range, insane DPS attack which only really affects one armor type.
Also, please when dealing with Protoss. ask Protoss players. Not terran and zerg players.
I am so disgusted by MorroW right now. Actually sick of what he thinks. The Korean scene sees so much more diversity and understanding and hard work. The builds are wayy more interesting. And most of the vP games I've been seeing in code S hinge upon 3 bases. What cheese and gimmick.
dota 2 has it, and is not suffering one bit for it. we should exactly copy the %25 random
In sc2 if you have vision of a unit on high ground, you can weigh up interactions and make decisions based on how much damage you would deal/take - if it's random to some extent, small exchanges would be much more coinflippy. When you're firing 30 attacks, missing 25% of them isn't a problem - but when you attack twice, you'd have a 1 in 16 chance of doing literally 0 damage with those odds
my thing is, dota and brood war did (are doing) fine with random miss chance uphill. i feel there is no practical argument against such a high ground advantage. having vision be the only factor in high ground advantage makes the game actually flat, similar to league of legends and heroes, instead of dota. as soon as i have vision (observer, medivac, overlord), the terrain becomes as if there were no cliff.
and wait, how exactly is attacking twice somehow 1 in 16? each attack is 1 in 4 misses. any exchange from a terrain difference (again, not present in LoL, heroes, or SC2) should be coin-flippy for the lower ground player, as that is a disadvantage on the lower ground.
Did they SERIOUSLY give THAT a shot???? LOL. This raises a major issue : who do they think belong to the "voicing community" that they deal with? Which semi-competent player would even consider such a change? Who the hell is DK talking to here?
as soon as i have vision (observer, medivac, overlord), the terrain becomes as if there were no cliff.
and wait, how exactly is attacking twice somehow 1 in 16? each attack is 1 in 4 misses.
You have a 1/4 ^2 chance (1/16) to miss both shots if you right click on an enemy and take your hands off the keyboard+mouse.
any exchange from a terrain difference (again, not present in LoL, heroes, or SC2) should be coin-flippy for the lower ground player, as that is a disadvantage on the lower ground.
Advantage/disadvantage i could agree with. There is already some though, especially on smaller ramps. Somebody on high ground can retreat and you often can't chase them directly (so they can back out of a fight temporarily while defending), getting up anything but a huge ramp becomes a challenge due to concaves from enemy, forcefields etc.
Further advantage i could maybe agree with, but coin flippy by design? There's no need for that. Shall we make a unit that hits for 20 damage but has a 10% chance to deal 80 damage and you don't know until the shot lands? What about 20% chance? 50% chance? It's just not a fun way to play a competitive game.
A small chance for something important to happen becomes very fluky, random. It will disproportionately impact some games/attacks while not affecting others at all. A 50% chance will have streaks in either direction, like flipping a coin and landing tails 3 times in a row.
If you make it non-random, like the LoL system of crits (where if you have 40% crit and you shoot enemy but don't crit, shoot again but don't crit - the game engine raises the chance that your third attack will crit to even the odds short term) then it will be gamed, abused and it will add to the skill/difficulty and knowledge burden of playing the game and interacting in any kind of battle.
while oracles can't effectively kill stalkers, i still feel it can be a pretty binary defense for protoss. Since Oracles are light, it takes over 10 real seconds (14 HOTS game seconds) for a stalker to kill one, assuming it's in range the entire time - so it takes 2-3 stalkers, sometimes even per mineral line to prevent significant damage. Being caught off guard usually involves losing a couple of workers, and then even a few more as your stalkers move into position before the fight even starts.
Oracles as a whole feel pretty all-or-nothing since their combat ability is solely based on a low range, insane DPS attack which only really affects one armor type.
And cyclones kill them even slower and cost much more. (pre-upgrade) Just include the full antiair damage into the unit from the get-go. Or make it like 200 at least, which is still very aweful dps for the cost, but at least an oracle would die after ~10seconds.
The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
On August 24 2015 16:01 Ozmodeus wrote: change zerg macro mechanics back to how they were.....as if zvz wasnt a complete mirror already... now its a skill less mirror. uninstalled
?
Have you played ravager roach vs lurker roach?
If not, go ahead and try it then come back and see if you feel the same way.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes. For cost and tech and build order reasons I gave already.
I'm not saying they should revert to the full antiair they had at the start of the beta. That was indeed stupid. But there is a middle ground between no antiair(last patch) and 42.85dps(early beta) and it is not 8.5dps(this patch). If it was like 14dps (200damage in 14seconds) it would still be less than 2stalkers of higher tech, but at least it would be better to have 5marines and a cyclone than to have 6marines as early antiair.
I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes. For cost and tech and build order reasons I gave already.
I'm not saying they should revert to the full antiair they had at the start of the beta. That was indeed stupid. But there is a middle ground between no antiair(last patch) and 42.85dps(early beta) and it is not 8.5dps(this patch). If it was like 14dps (200damage in 14seconds) it would still be less than 2stalkers of higher tech, but at least it would be better to have 5marines and a cyclone than to have 6marines as early antiair.
but like cyro and i have been saying..the oracle is built primarily to harass mineral lines against terran and the goal of the cyclone isn't primarily anti air. yes the oracle has other tools, but if you're not killing off workers, you're wasting time, tech, and supply. oracles have the same cost/supply but they're designed to kill workers whereas cyclones are designed to be anti-big unit with a touch of early anti air that, once you get in range, you either have to quickly escape, or face being kited without being able to fight back. in fact, cyclones are just a touch slower than oracles, i believe. so if the protoss player walks into a bunch of marines + a cyclone in your mineral field, you do stand a pretty good chance of snapping the oracle, if you stutter step, then continue to micro the cyclone. and even if you don't kill it, he's sure as hell not coming back which gives you ample time to set up turrets so you can leave your base.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time
I assume you are talking about the low income rate and not about placing mules (because that really doesn't take up a whole lot of time unlike inject larva).
If so I do find the low income growth rate problematic. Mostly because it makes the game more snowbally when damage/AOE/harass-units are strong and army values are low, but also because - as you point out - the game becomes a bit more slow.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time
I assume you are talking about the low income rate and not about placing mules (because that really doesn't take up a whole lot of time unlike inject larva).
If so I do find the low income growth rate problematic. Mostly because it makes the game more snowbally when damage/AOE/harass-units are strong and army values are low, but also because - as you point out - the game becomes a bit more slow.
Yes I was referring to the mineral intake seemed too slow to accomplish a whole lot. Previously a MULE could help me out and would bring in enough minerals to build up two barracks for this early-midgame time. It really helped with getting your mineral income going so you could spend it. Now it felt like I was just kind of sitting around watching my SCVs bring their minerals in and I was just waiting around so I could get enough money to build some barracks. But I was also forced into spending 100minerals per cycle on SCV as well. So everything just felt like the game was at a standstill at this point in time. Once you get the required SCVs (lets say 42 or so) the game felt like the same. But the time going from about 20 SCV to 40+ SCV felt very boring.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
While you are welcome to your opinion you did not refute anything other than giving your opinion. How exactly is it short sighted to make the skill floor higher? I would argue it is good for the longevity of the game so the barrier of entry to even pretend like you're playing the game isn't 50+ matches to get any form of internal rhythm for macro mechanics. It makes things much cleaner to a new comer because it acts more in a manner of a traditional RTS. You make workers and they harvest. You make structure and they make units. You try and balance your fundamental resource (minerals) with the advanced resource (gas.) They don't need to try and understand why the macro mechanics even exist. Possibly they wouldn't have existed in the first place if everyone wasn't so up in arms about MBS and infinite select "dumbing down" the game from WoL pre-beta.
I never said I dislike macro mechanics but I feel for the direction they're taking the game with LotV they are unnecessary. They are attempting to add more engaging and fun APM sinks. Thats great. That can make for a fun and interesting experience. In HotS much of that APM sinking doesn't really exist. So the macro mechanics feel more natural there. I even consider myself far and away a mechanical player than a strategic player. I started off admiring Terrans like Jinro over MKP. So this point of view is even biased as someone who considers themselves a macro player. But I've come to realize I don't boot up SC2 to play HotS anymore (and I didn't previous to getting into LotV.) Why? It wasn't very fun. It felt sterile. It felt almost single player. LotV feels much more like a 2 player game than HotS. Possibly because things are sloppy and possibly because it isn't as fully figured out. I don't know. But I find it much more fun than HotS.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
While you are welcome to your opinion you did not refute anything other than giving your opinion. How exactly is it short sighted to make the skill floor higher? I would argue it is good for the longevity of the game so the barrier of entry to even pretend like you're playing the game isn't 50+ matches to get any form of internal rhythm for macro mechanics. It makes things much cleaner to a new comer because it acts more in a manner of a traditional RTS. You make workers and they harvest. You make structure and they make units. You try and balance your fundamental resource (minerals) with the advanced resource (gas.) They don't need to try and understand why the macro mechanics even exist. Possibly they wouldn't have existed in the first place if everyone wasn't so up in arms about MBS and infinite select "dumbing down" the game from WoL pre-beta.
I never said I dislike macro mechanics but I feel for the direction they're taking the game with LotV they are unnecessary. They are attempting to add more engaging and fun APM sinks. Thats great. That can make for a fun and interesting experience. In HotS much of that APM sinking doesn't really exist. So the macro mechanics feel more natural there. I even consider myself far and away a mechanical player than a strategic player. I started off admiring Terrans like Jinro over MKP. So this point of view is even biased as someone who considers themselves a macro player. But I've come to realize I don't boot up SC2 to play HotS anymore (and I didn't previous to getting into LotV.) Why? It wasn't very fun. It felt sterile. It felt almost single player. LotV feels much more like a 2 player game than HotS. Possibly because things are sloppy and possibly because it isn't as fully figured out. I don't know. But I find it much more fun than HotS.
I mainly responded to your claim that macro mechanics didn't add any strategic depth to SC2 and that people felt frustrated if someone could just beat them by raw mechanics.
RTS, by definition means Real Time Strategy. What that means is that all the action takes place in real time. By definition that makes time a resource. What that implies is that spending time and attention on macro IS a choice. I hate this ignorant point of view that, because macro is mostly a repetitive and relatively monotone activity, it must be less important and therefore "the real game" is about micro and engagements and everything in the dev's powers should be done to cut out macro. Macro in a void is boring, but so is micro in a void, its the balancing of macro and micro that makes SC2 what it is and its what made BW what it is.
With that said, I do believe SC2's macro mechanics did have their own flaws, mostly in being asymmetrical and leading to some really broken situations (SCV sacking, instant zerg remaxes, protoss down in upgrades overtaking his opponent in upgrades). But I'm not sure that warranted their removal, a revision sure.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
While you are welcome to your opinion you did not refute anything other than giving your opinion. How exactly is it short sighted to make the skill floor higher? I would argue it is good for the longevity of the game so the barrier of entry to even pretend like you're playing the game isn't 50+ matches to get any form of internal rhythm for macro mechanics. It makes things much cleaner to a new comer because it acts more in a manner of a traditional RTS. You make workers and they harvest. You make structure and they make units. You try and balance your fundamental resource (minerals) with the advanced resource (gas.) They don't need to try and understand why the macro mechanics even exist. Possibly they wouldn't have existed in the first place if everyone wasn't so up in arms about MBS and infinite select "dumbing down" the game from WoL pre-beta.
I never said I dislike macro mechanics but I feel for the direction they're taking the game with LotV they are unnecessary. They are attempting to add more engaging and fun APM sinks. Thats great. That can make for a fun and interesting experience. In HotS much of that APM sinking doesn't really exist. So the macro mechanics feel more natural there. I even consider myself far and away a mechanical player than a strategic player. I started off admiring Terrans like Jinro over MKP. So this point of view is even biased as someone who considers themselves a macro player. But I've come to realize I don't boot up SC2 to play HotS anymore (and I didn't previous to getting into LotV.) Why? It wasn't very fun. It felt sterile. It felt almost single player. LotV feels much more like a 2 player game than HotS. Possibly because things are sloppy and possibly because it isn't as fully figured out. I don't know. But I find it much more fun than HotS.
I mainly responded to your claim that macro mechanics didn't add any strategic depth to SC2 and that people felt frustrated if someone could just beat them by raw mechanics.
RTS, by definition means Real Time Strategy. What that means is that all the action takes place in real time. By definition that makes time a resource. What that implies is that spending time and attention on macro IS a choice. I hate this ignorant point of view that, because macro is mostly a repetitive and relatively monotone activity, it must be less important and therefore "the real game" is about micro and engagements and everything in the dev's powers should be done to cut out macro. Macro in a void is boring, but so is micro in a void, its the balancing of macro and micro that makes SC2 what it is and its what made BW what it is.
With that said, I do believe SC2's macro mechanics did have their own flaws, mostly in being asymmetrical and leading to some really broken situations (SCV sacking, instant zerg remaxes, protoss down in upgrades overtaking his opponent in upgrades). But I'm not sure that warranted their removal, a revision sure.
Hey I'm with you on the RTS portion. When I discussed what someone did wrong in a game I would always say SC2 by definition is 66% your macro. Because it makes up the RT of RTS. And macro still exists. You can still get supply blocked. You can still be pre-occupied with your harassment and army to forget to expand. You can have uneven worker distribution across bases. You can forget production cycles. You can forget to add production. You can forget upgrades. You can forget your armory until +1/+1 is already finished (a Tenks staple.) Its all there. The only thing gone is being forced to return to base every 30 seconds to perform a mandatory macro action.
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
While you are welcome to your opinion you did not refute anything other than giving your opinion. How exactly is it short sighted to make the skill floor higher? I would argue it is good for the longevity of the game so the barrier of entry to even pretend like you're playing the game isn't 50+ matches to get any form of internal rhythm for macro mechanics. It makes things much cleaner to a new comer because it acts more in a manner of a traditional RTS. You make workers and they harvest. You make structure and they make units. You try and balance your fundamental resource (minerals) with the advanced resource (gas.) They don't need to try and understand why the macro mechanics even exist. Possibly they wouldn't have existed in the first place if everyone wasn't so up in arms about MBS and infinite select "dumbing down" the game from WoL pre-beta.
I never said I dislike macro mechanics but I feel for the direction they're taking the game with LotV they are unnecessary. They are attempting to add more engaging and fun APM sinks. Thats great. That can make for a fun and interesting experience. In HotS much of that APM sinking doesn't really exist. So the macro mechanics feel more natural there. I even consider myself far and away a mechanical player than a strategic player. I started off admiring Terrans like Jinro over MKP. So this point of view is even biased as someone who considers themselves a macro player. But I've come to realize I don't boot up SC2 to play HotS anymore (and I didn't previous to getting into LotV.) Why? It wasn't very fun. It felt sterile. It felt almost single player. LotV feels much more like a 2 player game than HotS. Possibly because things are sloppy and possibly because it isn't as fully figured out. I don't know. But I find it much more fun than HotS.
I mainly responded to your claim that macro mechanics didn't add any strategic depth to SC2 and that people felt frustrated if someone could just beat them by raw mechanics.
RTS, by definition means Real Time Strategy. What that means is that all the action takes place in real time. By definition that makes time a resource. What that implies is that spending time and attention on macro IS a choice. I hate this ignorant point of view that, because macro is mostly a repetitive and relatively monotone activity, it must be less important and therefore "the real game" is about micro and engagements and everything in the dev's powers should be done to cut out macro. Macro in a void is boring, but so is micro in a void, its the balancing of macro and micro that makes SC2 what it is and its what made BW what it is.
With that said, I do believe SC2's macro mechanics did have their own flaws, mostly in being asymmetrical and leading to some really broken situations (SCV sacking, instant zerg remaxes, protoss down in upgrades overtaking his opponent in upgrades). But I'm not sure that warranted their removal, a revision sure.
Hey I'm with you on the RTS portion. When I discussed what someone did wrong in a game I would always say SC2 by definition is 66% your macro. Because it makes up the RT of RTS. And macro still exists. You can still get supply blocked. You can still be pre-occupied with your harassment and army to forget to expand. You can have uneven worker distribution across bases. You can forget production cycles. You can forget to add production. You can forget upgrades. You can forget your armory until +1/+1 is already finished (a Tenks staple.) Its all there. The only thing gone is being forced to return to base every 30 seconds to perform a mandatory macro action.
Protoss and Terran still need depots every 20 seconds, so its not like we don't have to return to base
On August 24 2015 23:43 Tenks wrote: I've played a few games on the new patch so I'd like to give some thoughts. This is completely from a Terran perspective.
I'll start out by saying I was excited to get rid of the macro mechanics. I felt they didn't add any strategic depth to the game and people were annoyed and frustrated playing a RTS game where if you were mechanically superior you could completely throw the "strategy" aspect out the window. While it is fun competing against yourself and your own personal mechanics it isn't a necessarily engaging experience for the player. So while I understand the RTS purists not being happy about the removal of macro mechanics it felt like a logical step. LotV should focus on player vs player interaction, strategy and control. Not on who can remember to go back to base to drop MULE or inject larva. I wanted to preface my statements by showing I was initially biased pro-removal.
Now lets go into the actual games. The actual game is more boring than previously. Workers are now a precious resource. One that needs to be guarded. While that is a good thing it feels like you simply must open worker-harassment style. It also feels that now (as Terran) you can get a disproportionate amount of gas previously. So things like double reactor reaper felt "right." You are now mineral choked instead of gas choked liked before. So since the Reaper is naturally a gas heavy unit (1:1 ratio) it felt very natural to make these and in large quantities.
But this is where the game slows down. Once you are done reaper harassing I felt like I was sitting around for a large period of time building my infrastructure and getting a healthy worker supply. It was boring. Every game I dreaded entering this lull phase. Possibly I should have looked for other things to do with my time. Like maybe work on getting a medivac and tank out to harass. But I had to fear an actual army just running into my front door so I needed to get marines out which meant I was floating gas but was desperate for minerals. So it was very unnatural to try and build a standing army while also progressing through the tech tree. So again I just went for gas heavy investments like ebays and upgrades, marine upgrades while very slowly advancing through the tree. It felt off. I'm not sure what Blizzard could/should do to prevent it but right now the economy of Terran feels funny.
Like I said I enjoy the spirit of the change. I want them to try and tune the game with these artificial APM sinks taken away. I want my APM sinks to be things that are actively giving me the feeling of accomplishment. I want it to be harassment and skirmish not running back to base to macro. But right now the game feels weird.
That's such a dumb and shortsighted point of view. If I or any player out there is capable of training to the point where he is able to out produce anyone then he should be rewarded by defeating other players with pure macro.
Does that make for a bad game? Only in the context of macro being the strongest way of distributing your attention. If macro, micro, multi-tasking etc are all equal then it should in theory balance out while simultaneously richening the game by having a multitude of options in the game, the option to out-micro someone, the option to out-macro someone, the option to out-multitask someone and the option to out-think someone.
No matter how much you hated macro mechanics or believe they were detrimental to the game, the matter of fact is, the removal of them will probably make the game poorer by removing another way for players to express themselves.
While you are welcome to your opinion you did not refute anything other than giving your opinion. How exactly is it short sighted to make the skill floor higher? I would argue it is good for the longevity of the game so the barrier of entry to even pretend like you're playing the game isn't 50+ matches to get any form of internal rhythm for macro mechanics. It makes things much cleaner to a new comer because it acts more in a manner of a traditional RTS. You make workers and they harvest. You make structure and they make units. You try and balance your fundamental resource (minerals) with the advanced resource (gas.) They don't need to try and understand why the macro mechanics even exist. Possibly they wouldn't have existed in the first place if everyone wasn't so up in arms about MBS and infinite select "dumbing down" the game from WoL pre-beta.
I never said I dislike macro mechanics but I feel for the direction they're taking the game with LotV they are unnecessary. They are attempting to add more engaging and fun APM sinks. Thats great. That can make for a fun and interesting experience. In HotS much of that APM sinking doesn't really exist. So the macro mechanics feel more natural there. I even consider myself far and away a mechanical player than a strategic player. I started off admiring Terrans like Jinro over MKP. So this point of view is even biased as someone who considers themselves a macro player. But I've come to realize I don't boot up SC2 to play HotS anymore (and I didn't previous to getting into LotV.) Why? It wasn't very fun. It felt sterile. It felt almost single player. LotV feels much more like a 2 player game than HotS. Possibly because things are sloppy and possibly because it isn't as fully figured out. I don't know. But I find it much more fun than HotS.
I mainly responded to your claim that macro mechanics didn't add any strategic depth to SC2 and that people felt frustrated if someone could just beat them by raw mechanics.
RTS, by definition means Real Time Strategy. What that means is that all the action takes place in real time. By definition that makes time a resource. What that implies is that spending time and attention on macro IS a choice. I hate this ignorant point of view that, because macro is mostly a repetitive and relatively monotone activity, it must be less important and therefore "the real game" is about micro and engagements and everything in the dev's powers should be done to cut out macro. Macro in a void is boring, but so is micro in a void, its the balancing of macro and micro that makes SC2 what it is and its what made BW what it is.
With that said, I do believe SC2's macro mechanics did have their own flaws, mostly in being asymmetrical and leading to some really broken situations (SCV sacking, instant zerg remaxes, protoss down in upgrades overtaking his opponent in upgrades). But I'm not sure that warranted their removal, a revision sure.
Hey I'm with you on the RTS portion. When I discussed what someone did wrong in a game I would always say SC2 by definition is 66% your macro. Because it makes up the RT of RTS. And macro still exists. You can still get supply blocked. You can still be pre-occupied with your harassment and army to forget to expand. You can have uneven worker distribution across bases. You can forget production cycles. You can forget to add production. You can forget upgrades. You can forget your armory until +1/+1 is already finished (a Tenks staple.) Its all there. The only thing gone is being forced to return to base every 30 seconds to perform a mandatory macro action.
Protoss and Terran still need depots every 20 seconds, so its not like we don't have to return to base
With how much supply CCs were giving me I had supply flowing out my ass in my few games. It was awkward because I wanted to make a depot wall but I was already like 20 supply under my cap (and I was broke.) So I just threw the ebays where I'd generally make my depot wall. Then as Terran if I really screwed up and I got hard locked I could just throw down supply without feeling bad about it. I certainly "felt" like I was going back to base less to make depots. Probably a combo of CCs giving so much supply, emphasis on quick 3 bases and the fact in LotV you trade supply a bunch.
On August 22 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: Time to ditch Terran and pick up P or (especially) Z. Does Kimbo not realise that T cannot proactively tech switch to counter Zerg compositions because it takes a fucking long time to do build a new composition and they will likely have no upgrades. Siege tanks have received nothing but nerf after nerf since the WoL Beta.
Boohoo. Let's abandon the strongest race just because 1 unit isn't as broken as the Liberator
You only consider the Liberator broken because it's effective at doing the Siege Tank's job.
Siege Tanks are just terrible in SC2 and there's no ifs about that.
First of all, not ALL units have to be great or even niche role decent for a race to be balanced. Look at BW Protoss, Scout was completely useless but that didn't prevent P from being decent as a whole (still somewhat underpowered at Pro levels but that's not this discussion)
And second, Tanks are great at niche roles, narrow chokepoint sieging, or behind the cliff harrass supported with Marines.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
False. My experience was that it was only good against adept openings and zealots.
Against stalkers, siege tanks are required or far better.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
False. My experience was that it was only good against adept openings and zealots.
Against stalkers, siege tanks are required or far better.
this was in reference to a conversation with BigJ talking about their effectiveness vs air (particularly, oracles, but i think air in general)
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes, it should. The oracle was initially really fast, but it was buffed to be even faster so players with good control could keep it from dying. It should be a micro intensive unit instead of the fly in and do massive damage and fly out unit that it usually is. Against terran this should mean things mostly like sniiping scvs building things or in transit and only tapping a mineral line when units are out of position trying to intercept it or something. This is especially true in the post-macro mechanic removal economy where worker losses hurt a lot. The cyclone is an ideal solution because of its cost and the tech.
Terran should also be allowed to have openings in TvP that aren't reactored marine expands as well. It's been like that for over two years.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes, it should. The oracle was initially really fast, but it was buffed to be even faster so players with good control could keep it from dying. It should be a micro intensive unit instead of the fly in and do massive damage and fly out unit that it usually is. Against terran this should mean things mostly like sniiping scvs building things or in transit and only tapping a mineral line when units are out of position trying to intercept it or something. This is especially true in the post-macro mechanic removal economy where worker losses hurt a lot. The cyclone is an ideal solution because of its cost and the tech.
Terran should also be allowed to have openings in TvP that aren't reactored marine expands as well. It's been like that for over two years.
so you think that for the same cost and supply as an oracle, cyclones should just straight up kill an oracle with no support whatsoever?
how is that even remotely fair? the oracle doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at killing the cyclone and widow mines 1 shot them. cyclones are also great vs adepts which a protoss wants to make vs marines anyway. so what is this unit suppose to be bad at, exactly?
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes, it should. The oracle was initially really fast, but it was buffed to be even faster so players with good control could keep it from dying. It should be a micro intensive unit instead of the fly in and do massive damage and fly out unit that it usually is. Against terran this should mean things mostly like sniiping scvs building things or in transit and only tapping a mineral line when units are out of position trying to intercept it or something. This is especially true in the post-macro mechanic removal economy where worker losses hurt a lot. The cyclone is an ideal solution because of its cost and the tech.
Terran should also be allowed to have openings in TvP that aren't reactored marine expands as well. It's been like that for over two years.
so you think that for the same cost and supply as an oracle, cyclones should just straight up kill an oracle with no support whatsoever?
how is that even remotely fair? the oracle doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at killing the cyclone and widow mines 1 shot them. cyclones are also great vs adepts which a protoss wants to make vs marines anyway. so what is this unit suppose to be bad at, exactly?
Should a 150/150 main line army unit be able to kill a harass unit? Yes, nothing wrong with that. This is like asking if a stalker should be able to kill a reaper. The harass unit has a speed advantage and is dedicated to killing workers, not engaging straight up.
Prior to the new patch I had my worries with the new Disruptor, and after playing with it a bit, I heavily dislike it.
The unit falls into the same trap as Swarm Hosts, Tempests and other long-range units: It fires of a free "unit/projectile" that you can attempt to avoid but the unit initself cannot be killed if you have the weaker army value.
With the old Disruptor you had to get close to the enemey to deal damage, which meant that there was a huge risk involved with it. All they had to do was t o remove the post invul thing and replace it with a speed boost while reducing cost and the unit would be fine.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes, it should. The oracle was initially really fast, but it was buffed to be even faster so players with good control could keep it from dying. It should be a micro intensive unit instead of the fly in and do massive damage and fly out unit that it usually is. Against terran this should mean things mostly like sniiping scvs building things or in transit and only tapping a mineral line when units are out of position trying to intercept it or something. This is especially true in the post-macro mechanic removal economy where worker losses hurt a lot. The cyclone is an ideal solution because of its cost and the tech.
Terran should also be allowed to have openings in TvP that aren't reactored marine expands as well. It's been like that for over two years.
On August 24 2015 21:45 Cyro wrote: The main question to ask there: Do you want people who build only cyclones (without marines or a rushed turret or two) to be able to defend very effectively against stuff like proxy oracle?
The reason they were redesigned in the first place was that they were unreasonably good at defending whatever you threw at them without bias
Yes, it should. The oracle was initially really fast, but it was buffed to be even faster so players with good control could keep it from dying. It should be a micro intensive unit instead of the fly in and do massive damage and fly out unit that it usually is. Against terran this should mean things mostly like sniiping scvs building things or in transit and only tapping a mineral line when units are out of position trying to intercept it or something. This is especially true in the post-macro mechanic removal economy where worker losses hurt a lot. The cyclone is an ideal solution because of its cost and the tech.
Terran should also be allowed to have openings in TvP that aren't reactored marine expands as well. It's been like that for over two years.
Oracle was buffed partially because of the harassment, but the second part of the patch was meant in the way "so the unit is usable later in the game, not for evaporating SCVs in the early game". Without the speed you cannot consistently tag the Terran army with vikings. I personally think that the speed buff was horrible and it could be accomplished by using a different approach... but Oracle wasn't only about mineral harassment.
I agree the cyclone should be better anti-air, especially early game. Remove the damn lock-on from ground PLS and give it to anti-air with a descent damage output but not OP, and maybe decrease its gas cost and build time
On August 25 2015 20:38 Hider wrote: Prior to the new patch I had my worries with the new Disruptor, and after playing with it a bit, I heavily dislike it.
The unit falls into the same trap as Swarm Hosts, Tempests and other long-range units: It fires of a free "unit/projectile" that you can attempt to avoid but the unit initself cannot be killed if you have the weaker army value.
The old Diruptor had an absolute fine design in that it had to get close to the enemey to deal damage, which meant that there was a huge risk involved with it. All they had to do was t o remove the post invul thing and replace it with a speed boost while reducing cost and the unit would be fine.
I think the old one wasn't good to be honest. I don't think there would be any good way to make the old disruptor work without some invulnerability or get-away mechanic. A speed boost alone wouldn't be that great, unless it was some sick value like a speedzergling on creep or possibly even more - at which point I think it wouldn't be all too different from just blinking it away or moving away invulnerable. Also I think the invulnerability when moving in was also not very good.
The way the new one works is that you can attack it at all times, so in general you could attack it, while its ball is chasing other parts of your armies. That's a good thing imo. The damage and range feel too much though. Disruptors still have the inherent dynamic that - due to their inconsistent attack rate (and clunky to use attack, since you need to manually control the activation) paired with their insane damage/splash radius and big range - you either get the big hits and win, or you miss them and you lose horribly.
A speed boost alone wouldn't be that great, unless it was some sick value like a speedzergling on creep or possibly even more - at which point I think it wouldn't be all too different from just blinking it away or moving away invulnerable.
Well you have your Warp Prism to pick it up too. Speed boost would just be there so a Warp Prism + disruptor wouldn't be 100% mandatory.
The few times I played with it and against it, I always enjoyed it.
The way the new one works is that you can attack it at all times, so in general you could attack it, while its ball is chasing other parts of your armies.
If the enemy protoss player has a larger army value than you, then it can force an engagement, which I do not find to be a healthy dynamic. Becasue the only way you can kill the Disruptor is if you attack the protoss army (that includes the Disruptor). Otherwise the Disruptor ball will just slowly poke away at your army.
The problem is that this makes it much more of a deathball unit as it needs protection. The old Disruptor was anti-deathball as it functioned very wel by itself.
On August 25 2015 21:16 ffadicted wrote: I agree the cyclone should be better anti-air, especially early game. Remove the damn lock-on from ground PLS and give it to anti-air with a descent damage output but not OP, and maybe decrease its gas cost and build time
you'll be missing the ground attack vs ultras, be careful what you wish for.
On August 25 2015 20:38 Hider wrote: Prior to the new patch I had my worries with the new Disruptor, and after playing with it a bit, I heavily dislike it.
The unit falls into the same trap as Swarm Hosts, Tempests and other long-range units: It fires of a free "unit/projectile" that you can attempt to avoid but the unit initself cannot be killed if you have the weaker army value.
The old Diruptor had an absolute fine design in that it had to get close to the enemey to deal damage, which meant that there was a huge risk involved with it. All they had to do was t o remove the post invul thing and replace it with a speed boost while reducing cost and the unit would be fine.
I think the old one wasn't good to be honest. I don't think there would be any good way to make the old disruptor work without some invulnerability or get-away mechanic. A speed boost alone wouldn't be that great, unless it was some sick value like a speedzergling on creep or possibly even more - at which point I think it wouldn't be all too different from just blinking it away or moving away invulnerable. Also I think the invulnerability when moving in was also not very good.
The way the new one works is that you can attack it at all times, so in general you could attack it, while its ball is chasing other parts of your armies. That's a good thing imo. The damage and range feel too much though. Disruptors still have the inherent dynamic that - due to their inconsistent attack rate (and clunky to use attack, since you need to manually control the activation) paired with their insane damage/splash radius and big range - you either get the big hits and win, or you miss them and you lose horribly.
can you pick it up in a warp prism while it's attack is out? or will that cancel the attack?
On August 25 2015 20:38 Hider wrote: Prior to the new patch I had my worries with the new Disruptor, and after playing with it a bit, I heavily dislike it.
The unit falls into the same trap as Swarm Hosts, Tempests and other long-range units: It fires of a free "unit/projectile" that you can attempt to avoid but the unit initself cannot be killed if you have the weaker army value.
With the old Disruptor you had to get close to the enemey to deal damage, which meant that there was a huge risk involved with it. All they had to do was t o remove the post invul thing and replace it with a speed boost while reducing cost and the unit would be fine.
sort of. with a lesser army value it also has less to hit and you have less to split, so in that way it scales.
A speed boost alone wouldn't be that great, unless it was some sick value like a speedzergling on creep or possibly even more - at which point I think it wouldn't be all too different from just blinking it away or moving away invulnerable.
Well you have your Warp Prism to pick it up too. Speed boost would just be there so a Warp Prism + disruptor wouldn't be 100% mandatory.
The few times I played with it and against it, I always enjoyed it.
The way the new one works is that you can attack it at all times, so in general you could attack it, while its ball is chasing other parts of your armies.
If the enemy protoss player has a larger army value than you, then it can force an engagement, which I do find to be a healthy dynamic. Becasue the only way you can kill the Disruptor is if you attack the protoss army (that includes the Disruptor). Otherwise the Disruptor ball will just slowly poke away at your army.
The problem is that this makes it much more of a deathball unit as it needs protection. The old Disruptor was anti-deathball as it functioned very wel by itself.
The old disruptor worked well out on the map with a warp prism. I think this is still the case. But you have a point that the unit has become much more rewarding when used for sieging with deathball protection, since it doesn't have to move forward anymore. But I think that was kind of necessary, at least judging from my previous ZvPs where disruptors often didn't help the protoss army too much if you payed attention to them during the battle. So Protoss didn't really have a solid splash option for engagements.
On August 25 2015 21:16 ffadicted wrote: I agree the cyclone should be better anti-air, especially early game. Remove the damn lock-on from ground PLS and give it to anti-air with a descent damage output but not OP, and maybe decrease its gas cost and build time
you'll be missing the ground attack vs ultras, be careful what you wish for.,
With MULE gone, I think it's time to reinstate the marauder
On August 25 2015 21:16 ffadicted wrote: I agree the cyclone should be better anti-air, especially early game. Remove the damn lock-on from ground PLS and give it to anti-air with a descent damage output but not OP, and maybe decrease its gas cost and build time
you'll be missing the ground attack vs ultras, be careful what you wish for.,
With MULE gone, I think it's time to reinstate the marauder
idk, the marauder has always been way too strong. im sorta glad that the dmg was split up.
On August 25 2015 21:16 ffadicted wrote: I agree the cyclone should be better anti-air, especially early game. Remove the damn lock-on from ground PLS and give it to anti-air with a descent damage output but not OP, and maybe decrease its gas cost and build time
you'll be missing the ground attack vs ultras, be careful what you wish for.,
With MULE gone, I think it's time to reinstate the marauder
idk, the marauder has always been way too strong. im sorta glad that the dmg was split up.
Period. The Marauder has always been crazy good. Problem is that it simply achieved what the rest of bio units couldn't.
Bio shouldn't be MM. Reapers should be a valid option, Ghost is just kept as a caster, and there should be another bio unit of a higher tier. The HERC was fun as a troll unit, but the concept of a high level unit should be there.
On August 24 2015 01:02 mishimaBeef wrote: I was surprised to see Taeja streaming Legacy of the Void today. Unfortunately for me I was only able to catch his last game. I tell you, it was INTENSE! I am eagerly awaiting more pro players showcasing Legacy of the Void.
Taeja is going to be fine with LotV. His control is sick... love watching that guy play.
On August 26 2015 01:06 [PkF] Wire wrote: I really hope splitting warp-in power and building energy power gets tested at some point.
That's pretty much what's being tested at the moment; Warp in takes about 4-5x longer than in HOTS unless a warp gate, nexus or warp prism is in the power field.
On August 26 2015 01:06 [PkF] Wire wrote: I really hope splitting warp-in power and building energy power gets tested at some point.
That's pretty much what's being tested at the moment; Warp in takes about 4-5x longer than in HOTS unless a warp gate, nexus or warp prism is in the power field.
No that's different, though the aim is the same (nerfing offensive warp-in). The version that's being tested atm is maybe fine but it's quite inelegant while the split solution is more simple and clear (only one "type of circle") and cannot create problems with the actually buffed defensive warp-ins that are bound to be used offensively at some point.
Anyway I'm pretty adamant the warp prism will take a huge nerf at some point, be it a robotics bay requirement, a 100 gas cost...
2 second to warp in is the main problem i think. The HOTS warp in time was about 3.8 seconds IIRC, so if it was 5-7 instead of 2 it would be much better
IDK why they buffed warp prism with the ability to pick up units from halfway across the screen, i would have taken more agility, health, bigger warp radius, faster warp times and such any day rather than that if it now has to be nerfed because of it
On August 26 2015 03:15 Cyro wrote: 2 second to warp in is the main problem i think. The HOTS warp in time was about 3.8 seconds IIRC, so if it was 5-7 instead of 2 it would be much better
IDK why they buffed warp prism with the ability to pick up units from halfway across the screen, i would have taken more agility, health, bigger warp radius, faster warp times and such any day rather than that if it now has to be nerfed because of it
it definitely is, especially with the buff to chargelots, if you don't kill the warp prism as it enters your base, there's a high chance you're gonna get rolled over.
and the ranged pickup is a 200 mineral blink. if you have decent micro, its blink for units that don't normally have it and you're giving stuff like adepts so much survivability. and if the other player is forced to move a large amount of units, it opens up other opportunities for them to snipe a base, etc
But I think that was kind of necessary, at least judging from my previous ZvPs where disruptors often didn't help the protoss army too much if you payed attention to them during the battle.
Well I think the old Disruptor was a misfit in attempting to fulfill the lacks of protoss in LOTV: What protoss needed was a consistent damage dealer, which they had in the Colossus. The Disruptor on the other hand had a 22 (LOTV)-second CD and its damage was 100% dependant on well the opponent would micr.
But I don't think its fair to claim that as a design flaw of the Disruptor. I think protoss simply needed fixes elsewhere in order to open op the role of the Disruptor to be a unit with a less guaranteed damage output. I am also not sure whether the new Disruptor even fulfills that role or whether people thinks its better now because protoss has a ton more units in the midgame relative to their opponents (than what previously was the case).
On August 26 2015 03:15 Cyro wrote: 2 second to warp in is the main problem i think. The HOTS warp in time was about 3.8 seconds IIRC, so if it was 5-7 instead of 2 it would be much better
IDK why they buffed warp prism with the ability to pick up units from halfway across the screen, i would have taken more agility, health, bigger warp radius, faster warp times and such any day rather than that if it now has to be nerfed because of it
it definitely is, especially with the buff to chargelots, if you don't kill the warp prism as it enters your base, there's a high chance you're gonna get rolled over.
and the ranged pickup is a 200 mineral blink. if you have decent micro, its blink for units that don't normally have it and you're giving stuff like adepts so much survivability. and if the other player is forced to move a large amount of units, it opens up other opportunities for them to snipe a base, etc
I actually won against a GM terran player on LOTV with my off race protoss. Got a warp prism and some adepts early on. Fucked up majorly because I suck and lost the warp prism + 3 adepts. But whatever, I just got another one and warped in some chargelots. He couldn't punish me becasue my army value was - throughout the entire game - above his. While presuring him (with amoves) basically he had to micro his ass of while I outexpanded and outteched him all at once.
Think I went like 5-0 in PvT that day while having no idea what I am doing besides building warp prism + lots of warpgate units.
Seriously TvP is a gigantic joke, and while balance issues are acceptable in a beta phase, there is little value in testing this patch atm when they could so easily have been identified and adressed in the internal testing.
But I think that was kind of necessary, at least judging from my previous ZvPs where disruptors often didn't help the protoss army too much if you payed attention to them during the battle.
Well I think the old Disruptor was a misfit in attempting to fulfill the lacks of protoss in LOTV: What protoss needed was a consistent damage dealer, which they had in the Colossus. The Disruptor on the other hand had a 22 (LOTV)-second CD and its damage was 100% dependant on well the opponent would micr.
But I don't think its fair to claim that as a design flaw of the Disruptor. I think protoss simply needed fixes elsewhere in order to open op the role of the Disruptor to be a unit with a less guaranteed damage output. I am also not sure whether the new Disruptor even fulfills that role or whether people thinks its better now because protoss has a ton more units in the midgame relative to their opponents (than what previously was the case).
I think every race needs somewhat solid combat splash units, otherwise I believe the game becomes very volatile and hard to balance given how different "unit power curves" naturally increment very differently, depending on their range, attack and dps values. And the "natural" prevention to have single-fire units incrementing too hard is a solid splash backbone that punishes concentrating too many of those. Whether that role should be pushed on the disruptor I don't know, but I think that's what blizzard's goal with that unit was all along. Having strong harassment capabilities is a great upside for the disruptor, but I personally don't believe in high gas-cost harassment if it doesn't also somewhat relate to army power/build-up.
I actually won against a GM terran player on LOTV with my off race protoss. Got a warp prism and some adepts early on
Very early defense is critical, i see dia-masters terrans (not played GM) doing ridiculous stuff like cc first or 1rax cc on the low ground with 1 bunker in front not walling off that obviously can't hold adepts, and then they die. The warp prism warp-in time combined with pickup range is a problem i think (and pickup range isn't fun! 2-3 range would be cool, 6 is silly) and adept cost is probably gonna be changed to 50 gas
I think with no warp prism pickup range, a 4-5 second warp instead of 2 seconds and adept cost change there is no problem. Terrans will figure out what they can and can't do (and it won't be as hard to hold)
@above, i think it would be more fun to be not so reliant on the t3. Disruptor itself, if kept as-is, doesn't feel very fun to me particularly because of the HUGE attack cooldown (it's like 30-32 seconds in HOTS time) and the shots feeling a bit awkward to control.
Could get used to it but so far, it's the most awkward feeling spellcaster in the game IMO. I guess a big part of that is lacking any kind of cooldown display - i often try to select one + fire and the cooldown is only 80% done, or straight out the wrong disruptor from halfway across the map fires instead because i didn't select only the disruptor that i wanted to shoot, so the wrong one eats the command to fire its long cooldown shot at nothing and sit immobile in the middle of the map. It's not that mechanically hard compared to controlling stuff in BW, but it's a very strange added complexity in starcraft when almost everything else works much more smoothly.
Having to guess at a cooldown that long because there's no display for it doesn't feel good. It's also un-reaver-like because there's a lot of engagements that go like this when you have a few of them:
1; bait the disruptor shots 2; dodge/kite them without taking significant damage 3; kill half of his army before the disruptors can fire a second time
that just feels awkward and inconsistent as a unit that's so expensive. Reavers fired like 5x as often and could be picked up after firing, which are 2 traits that i would happily give up the unique stuff on the disruptor in order to have again.
I think with no warp prism pickup range, a 4-5 second warp instead of 2 seconds and adept cost change there is no problem. Terrans will figure out what they can and can't do (and it won't be as hard to hold)
As I said I even lost the first warp prism + adepts but still had more stuff than him since terran lacks mineral income. And it wans't even like the game was close at any point in time.
We are talking about such a ridicilous level of imbalance so that even though the skilcap of pickup micro is high, you don't even need to abuse it. You can just outproduce the terran, take more bases and outtech him at the same time.
So I don't think small changes are anywhere near enough. Warp-in time should be really high as default. At least 8 seconds because otherwise it will always be too strong as an all-in. Then protoss players should be able to research an upgrade at robo bay that reduces it. On top of that terran needs to be able to get more stuff out, which should be possible through a better mineral/gas cost ratio.
As I said I even lost the first warp prism + adepts but still had more stuff than him since terran lacks mineral income
Protoss income got hit with a huge stick too. Standard openings put the first 3 chrono's on probes since the beginning of time, sometimes more
If you're going from one game alone, can you post the replay?
Going out from one replay? No I lost a couple of times as TvP to warp prism. Then I saw one of the guys I lost to just doing the exact same on Nathanias stream and Nathanias had no chance.
Afterwards I thought to myself "this seems like a freewin, I bet I can do it". And previously when I tried to offrace with socalled "imbalanced strats", they would never go nearly as well as I expected them.
But this time I went 7-0 in PvT's. Every single game I outproduced the terran, and was able to expand and tech faster. this shit just outproducing terrans every single game. Right now my LOTV protoss is actually more succesful than my LOTV terran which is a strong indications of a big balance problem.
I actually lost my 8th PvT, but it was pretty close despite him having lost 18k worth of units to my 10K.
So that's roughly how cost efficient you need to be as terarn in the early/midgame to win against a toss with a warp prism and mass warpgates.
I suggest you jsut try it your self. It's absolutely insane how easy it is. Terran losses way more in terms of mineral income than protoss does. A couple of chrono on nexus = 2 more probes. Terran losses mule income from 3 OC's which is like 15 workers. Surely you would also take advantage which makes it less than 15 workers, however, you would on 2 bases mule constantly which would you give a high mineral income very quickly and then you could take a quick 3rd, and you would be able to mule on 3 OC's 1-2 rounds which allowed you to set up production and get access to map control.
However, everything gets superdelayed here which actually makes the real income difference even more problematic because you really can never actually afford a 3rd while keeping up a decent amount of unit production as terran.
Previously terran would outproduce toss in the midgame but toss would scale better. Now its vice versa with the exception that terran has no defensive abilites to survive since siege tanks gets countered by chargelots/blink stalkers.
The differecen between TvP and TvZ is that terran through siege tank drops and liberators can get into the later stages of the game where mass Cyclones are still very strong, whereas that's not realistic in TvP.
Balance aside, LOTV - more than ever- suffers from the neverending midgame state. In order for a proper lategame dynamic to be established, you need large army sizes spread out all over the map. The income rate in LOTV is way too low and instead most games ends up being scrappy and snowbally.
On August 26 2015 22:59 Hider wrote: Balance aside, LOTV - more than ever- suffers from the neverending midgame state. In order for a proper lategame dynamic to be established, you need large army sizes spread out all over the map. The income rate in LOTV is way too low and instead most games ends up being scrappy and snowbally.
They won't change how the economy works at this point though, sadly
I suggest you jsut try it your self. It's absolutely insane how easy it is.
I'm like rank 7 GM on LOTV archon but losing to terran occasionally. Actually finding terran harder than zerg to play against and almost nobody is playing protoss. Match history is broken so i can't check, but i don't remember hitting a single protoss in the last 15 or so games even though the majority of people are playing Random (it's all Random with some terrans and occasional zerg.. the randoms didn't seem to land on protoss much)
I think now's the time to announce a players race at the start of the game if they queue as Random. It sucks more than ever to not know what race you're playing against until after your nexus/2gate timing, it's disgusting.
Also kinda curious the best way to hold a PvRandom cannon rush because we royally fucked it up the first time and died horribly. That guy just built a pylon and send a probe across map immediately, build a forge and send that probe across map too immediately - so he had 10 probes at home, 2 probes attacking
As I said I even lost the first warp prism + adepts but still had more stuff than him since terran lacks mineral income
Protoss income got hit with a huge stick too. Standard openings put the first 3 chrono's on probes since the beginning of time, sometimes more
If you're going from one game alone, can you post the replay?
Going out from one replay? No I lost a couple of times as TvP to warp prism. Then I saw one of the guys I lost to just doing the exact same on Nathanias stream and Nathanias had no chance.
Afterwards I thought to myself "this seems like a freewin, I bet I can do it". And previously when I tried to offrace with socalled "imbalanced strats", they would never go nearly as well as I expected them.
But this time I went 7-0 in PvT's. Every single game I outproduced the terran, and was able to expand and tech faster. this shit just outproducing terrans every single game. Right now my LOTV protoss is actually more succesful than my LOTV terran which is a strong indications of a big balance problem.
I actually lost my 8th PvT, but it was pretty close despite him having lost 18k worth of units to my 10K.
So that's roughly how cost efficient you need to be as terarn in the early/midgame to win against a toss with a warp prism and mass warpgates.
I suggest you jsut try it your self. It's absolutely insane how easy it is. Terran losses way more in terms of mineral income than protoss does. A couple of chrono on nexus = 2 more probes. Terran losses mule income from 3 OC's which is like 15 workers. Surely you would also take advantage which makes it less than 15 workers, however, you would on 2 bases mule constantly which would you give a high mineral income very quickly and then you could take a quick 3rd, and you would be able to mule on 3 OC's 1-2 rounds which allowed you to set up production and get access to map control.
However, everything gets superdelayed here which actually makes the real income difference even more problematic because you really can never actually afford a 3rd while keeping up a decent amount of unit production as terran.
Previously terran would outproduce toss in the midgame but toss would scale better. Now its vice versa with the exception that terran has no defensive abilites to survive since siege tanks gets countered by chargelots/blink stalkers.
The differecen between TvP and TvZ is that terran through siege tank drops and liberators can get into the later stages of the game where mass Cyclones are still very strong, whereas that's not realistic in TvP.
That sounds good man I'd like to do some ladder climbing, you have any reps?
LOTV is pretty dead - there's nobody queing archon worth more than +1 point for us and we're not that good. It's hard to make good balance observations from that, i can just say the warp prism pickup range of 6 (rather than 0-2) is rather silly and release interceptor probably needs looking at
God, I'm waiting so hard for the next update/balance patch right now.
The game is between awesome and unplayable broken at the moment and I actually would like to see some tweaks for the next update instead of huge design changes. Make it more playable and balanced and feel more fair (in particular for Terran).
Oh, and ZvZ is really good since the patch, can't stress enough how fucking amazing the inject nerf has been for this matchup. Personally, the only tweak I would like to see at the moment to this matchup is a small nerf to mutalisks.
I'm like rank 7 GM on LOTV archon but losing to terran occasionally. Actually finding terran harder than zerg to play against and almost nobody is playing protoss
Well I meant you can try playing protoss yourself.
I think that if you play against a toss (as terran) that attempts to tech very hard and play defensively, you can probably do okay'ish as terrran. But protoss can just mass warpgate units in the midgame with constant warp prism drops, and then it doesn't really become close. Terrans only hope is that they in some way survive untill they reach a critical mass of Cyclones/Hellions.
The game is between awesome and unplayable broken at the moment and I actually would like to see some tweaks for the next update instead of huge design changes.
Yeh that's kinda how I feel too. After playing some more I come to like some more of the new LOTV stuff, and I think that it in some ways - is a huge upgrade over HOTS.
The need to no longer inject felt awesome as zerg. It was so much more fun to just focus on controlling the army. And protoss also feels better with Adept and more even army strenght in the midgame + warp prism micro (despite the imbalance) is still fun. Liberators - took a bit of time to get used to - but definitely adds a new positional element and the "micro" is unique too. (though it does overlap with some units).
PvZ also felt decent as toss because I was often times dodging Ravager skillshots and just massing units instead of forcefield spamming as in HOTS.
But overall the balance is just too bad atm, and I am interested in seeing whether I still can have fun with toss if TvP becomes more balanced so you can no longer outproduce the terran.
LOTV is pretty dead - there's nobody queing archon worth more than +1 point for us and we're not that good. It's hard to make good balance observations from that, i can just say the warp prism pickup range of 6 (rather than 0-2) is rather silly and release interceptor probably needs looking at
looks like my buddy and i dropped rank lol. we're in grandmaster archon but the ppl we face are generally platinum and diamond with the occasional gm 1v1 thrown in there too.
i thought that this was an interesting video from incontrol
i like how he discusses how you have to change your current way of thinking about the game in order to test out the changes, much like some streamers are unable to do and proceed to bitch and moan and play another game instead of trying to learn and adapt :coughavilocough:
Well I meant you can try playing protoss yourself.
We're playing protoss.
I don't feel it would be fair for cyclone AA attack damage to be doubled - their speed and range is very extreme. This is one unit that would just feel completely terrible to become the new Winfestor for a year beating all compositions and being core to terran army - it should not be strong in every way. It's still a deterrant to air, even a single one - building a cyclone instead of a siege tank will put you in a significantly better position against an oracle or prism.
weaker inject is cool but i think hatchery larvae rate and cap should be adjusted a bit, maybe inject energy cost lowered to 15. Autocast inject wouldn't be neccesary; it would be a boost but make up more like 20% of your larvae rather than the ~55-60% that it was in HOTS.
looks like my buddy and i dropped rank lol. we're in grandmaster archon but the ppl we face are generally platinum and diamond with the occasional gm 1v1 thrown in there too.
There are no Masters in LOTV archon - we went plat to GM in one game and have never hit a master (only plat, maybe diamonds and a lot of gm's)
i have a raid starting so can't watch 31 min vid atm, will give it a look later
Well I meant you can try playing protoss yourself.
We're playing protoss.
I don't feel it would be fair for cyclone AA attack damage to be doubled - their speed and range is very extreme. This is one unit that would just feel completely terrible to become the new Winfestor for a year beating all compositions and being core to terran army - it should not be strong in every way. It's still a deterrant to air, even a single one - building a cyclone instead of a siege tank will put you in a significantly better position against an oracle or prism.
weaker inject is cool but i think hatchery larvae rate and cap should be adjusted a bit, maybe inject energy cost lowered to 15. Autocast inject wouldn't be neccesary; it would be a boost but make up more like 20% of your larvae rather than the ~55-60% that it was in HOTS.
looks like my buddy and i dropped rank lol. we're in grandmaster archon but the ppl we face are generally platinum and diamond with the occasional gm 1v1 thrown in there too.
There are no Masters in LOTV archon - we went plat to GM in one game and have never hit a master (only plat, maybe diamonds and a lot of gm's)
i have a raid starting so can't watch 31 min vid atm, will give it a look later
we were originally placed in platinum, then after the ladder reset, dropped to silver, THEN moved up to GM lmao. no where near deserving of that, with me playing an offrace so my buddy stands a chance (he has horrible decision making but i love him anyway).
gonna agree about the cyclone dmg. it could probably stand to be increased, but i dont think that the oracle should lose HP for coming into range, seeing the cyclone, then getting out. in its current state, it takes off some shield, but in order to do life point dmg, you have to have marines around. i think that's fair. if you wanna blow up an oracle, you need a widow mine and have to use it's cd BUT you can dodge it if you're watching the oracle. the matchup between oracle vs terran units feels pretty good.
to the people that think it should be significantly buffed, you shouldn't be able to mass a single unit and previously, you could just mass cyclones and win. it was stupid. you can't mass other units in the same way, so why should cyclones be the exception? that's what happened when the AA attack was super strong.
personally i think that you need to have inject in the game in order to balance out creep spread and air-play. even if you made it more expensive or creep tumors took longer to come off cd, if you didn't have inject, queens would have little reason to sit next to a hatchery and things like banshee or oracle harass would be greatly weakened bc you can just keep the queens grouped and follow units around as they attempt to find a hole in your base. that said, weaker inject harms my gameplay more than missing the old inject by 10s, especially vs terran because of the lack of larva to produce lings, and thus banelings. with the liberator/hellbat pushes that are common (and by common i mean, 95% of what i face), it isn't a gigantic deal because i'm spending more on roaches which are more supply efficient..but shit, its gonna suck when terran realize that they can't produce as many marines, but we can't produce as many lings either. any 2 base bio tank pressure i've faced has been INCREDIBLY difficult to hold.
On August 26 2015 22:59 Hider wrote: Balance aside, LOTV - more than ever- suffers from the neverending midgame state. In order for a proper lategame dynamic to be established, you need large army sizes spread out all over the map. The income rate in LOTV is way too low and instead most games ends up being scrappy and snowbally.
Is that really a bad thing, though? One of the things I love about BW was how, after a certain point, the players just kept constantly trading units with each other. WoL and HotS' lategame annoyed me because it was way too easy to get to 200/200. After that, the players sat on their asses, built a huge bank and waited until they had the perfect composition. The sight of 200/200 armies doing nothing while the players built up huge banks is just terribly boring. Give me scrappy any day.
I don't feel it would be fair for cyclone AA attack damage to be doubled - their speed and range is very extreme
I would give back terran mules at 20 per trip (from 30). I think that would be a big enough nerf to continue to have decisions between when to get the OC and would also add realistic tradeoffs between supply calldown and mule calldown. And most importantly, it will make the balace of terran much easier. Of all of the macromechanics, mule is still very very easy and doesn't take up alot of attention.
One of the things I love about BW was how, after a certain point, the players just kept constantly trading units with each other. WoL and HotS' lategame annoyed me because it was way too easy to get to 200/200
BW lategame had a very high income rate. Frequently it was even higher than what you saw in HOTS as worker income continued to contribute post 16 worker (on 1 base).
In LOTV you often find your self at 2-2½ base income on average whereas in BW you would an income rate that responds to 4 bases.
When the income rate is very low, the game becomes less forgiveable, because if you lose a decent army value at one point in time, you can't easily replace that and will often lose the game after that. The effect is that you often time won't get back and fourth trading in LOTV. If one player trades a bit too well, the game will often times be over afterwards, and it's why all LOTV games are so short and snowbally.
BW had very distinct phases between the early game, the midgame and the lategame. In my opinion the early-game and especially the midgame was often times too passive in BW: I think adding much stronger harass units is the proper approach for a more actionpacked midgame, and in that regard, LOTV works very well. However, in the late game you need 3 components:
1. High income rate --> To make the game back and fourth 2. Players spread out over multiple bases --> To incentivize multitasking 3. Offensive tools that can break defensive position, such as Arbiter Recall, overlord drops (which indirectly were stronger in BW) and big medivac drops.
My proposed solution/adjustment to LOTV economy
1. Increase income rate by 10-20% (e.g. add 6 minerals per trip instead of 5).
2. Reduce BT of buildings across the field. This will accomplish 3 things:
(a) build order timings will be adjusted so builds feel similar given the new highe income rate (b). If bases can be build faster, losing a base will be less punishing --> more back and fourth (c) It further speeds up periods of the game where nothing else happens (and this time the "other" consequences will be positive).
At last, I also propse a supply reduction to multiple units so players can afford - once they enter the late game - to have more workers if they have more bases. This will also make it possible to spread out your (larger) army across multiple bases rather than moving around with a mobile supply ineffective deathball.
On August 26 2015 22:59 Hider wrote: Balance aside, LOTV - more than ever- suffers from the neverending midgame state. In order for a proper lategame dynamic to be established, you need large army sizes spread out all over the map. The income rate in LOTV is way too low and instead most games ends up being scrappy and snowbally.
Is that really a bad thing, though? One of the things I love about BW was how, after a certain point, the players just kept constantly trading units with each other. WoL and HotS' lategame annoyed me because it was way too easy to get to 200/200. After that, the players sat on their asses, built a huge bank and waited until they had the perfect composition. The sight of 200/200 armies doing nothing while the players built up huge banks is just terribly boring. Give me scrappy any day.
gonna agree with this sentiment too. idk about you guys, but the greatest satisfaction i get from this game is when you get an opponent you're constantly trading with and you finally eek out the win after a big struggle.
on the other hand, when i'm playing against mech or turtley protoss air, it's a snooze fest.
LOTV is pretty dead - there's nobody queing archon worth more than +1 point for us and we're not that good. It's hard to make good balance observations from that, i can just say the warp prism pickup range of 6 (rather than 0-2) is rather silly and release interceptor probably needs looking at
looks like my buddy and i dropped rank lol. we're in grandmaster archon but the ppl we face are generally platinum and diamond with the occasional gm 1v1 thrown in there too.
i thought that this was an interesting video from incontrol
i like how he discusses how you have to change your current way of thinking about the game in order to test out the changes, much like some streamers are unable to do and proceed to bitch and moan and play another game instead of trying to learn and adapt :coughavilocough:
i agree with most of what he says, thoughts?
Yeah, very much what I think too. It's their choice what to do with the expansion and I really like the approach to shake up the game fundamentally. I think it was pretty clear with HotS already that the "small scale" expansion is just not a good model these days, at least not if the expansion is released 2-3years after the last iteration.
For the first time I'm very happy with the direction LotV has taken. In the first months of beta it really felt like they would just add units and do their tiny economy tweaks, polish and done. With the macro boosters gone and finally some substantial experimentation with warp gate - and hopefully the mothershipcore next - they have finally showcased true changes are on the menu. I just wish the beta would be a few months longer. I would like to see a bit of a design-balance rythm: 1) make 1-2 big design changes 2) evaluate them for a week and tweak the game around it a bit afterwards 3) evaluate them for another week and then conclude if going that direction is worthy or not; start again with another change
They wasted a lot of time in the early beta and alpha, TT
LOTV is pretty dead - there's nobody queing archon worth more than +1 point for us and we're not that good. It's hard to make good balance observations from that, i can just say the warp prism pickup range of 6 (rather than 0-2) is rather silly and release interceptor probably needs looking at
looks like my buddy and i dropped rank lol. we're in grandmaster archon but the ppl we face are generally platinum and diamond with the occasional gm 1v1 thrown in there too.
i thought that this was an interesting video from incontrol
i like how he discusses how you have to change your current way of thinking about the game in order to test out the changes, much like some streamers are unable to do and proceed to bitch and moan and play another game instead of trying to learn and adapt :coughavilocough:
i agree with most of what he says, thoughts?
Yeah, very much what I think too. It's their choice what to do with the expansion and I really like the approach to shake up the game fundamentally. I think it was pretty clear with HotS already that the "small scale" expansion is just not a good model these days, at least not if the expansion is released 2-3years after the last iteration.
For the first time I'm very happy with the direction LotV has taken. In the first months of beta it really felt like they would just add units and do their tiny economy tweaks, polish and done. With the macro boosters gone and finally some substantial experimentation with warp gate - and hopefully the mothershipcore next - they have finally showcased true changes are on the menu. I just wish the beta would be a few months longer. I would like to see a bit of a design-balance rythm: 1) make 1-2 big design changes 2) evaluate them for a week and tweak the game around it a bit afterwards 3) evaluate them for another week and then conclude if going that direction is worthy or not; start again with another change
They wasted a lot of time in the early beta and alpha, TT
yeah i definitely feel like im heavily critical towards blizzard for waiting until beta to hold their pro player summit and make changes like this.
but who knows, blizzard is notorious for extending their timeline to wait until the game is ready so maybe we'll get more time in beta
They wasted a lot of time in the early beta and alpha, TT
I really feel that they did, we're like 4.5 months into beta and they didn't test very big changes until very recently.
There's fewer people than HOTS beta online and queueing games even though WAY more people are in, which is unfortunate. A lot of people were excited to get in early and get ahead of the competition for HOTS but nobody cares now at the higher levels because the state the game was in 4 months ago would have been useless to train in for competitive play at any point in time. With no high level streamers, the lower guys don't follow.
Also i have 170 ping to the beta which, combined with engine delay, gives a 0.25 - 0.3 lag on unit commands. It's very annoyingly playable for a lot of the game but stuff like phoenix vs muta micro is impossible to do properly. That ping is awful, i wonder where the server is because i get ~100 ping to a lot of US servers and 24 ping to the WoW europe servers.
but who knows, blizzard is notorious for extending their timeline to wait until the game is ready
they're also infamous for extending delays for a very long time and then releasing products that clearly were not ready for the light of day (see Diablo 3 and WoW:WOD)
Actually i'm gonna go ahead and quote.
Diablo:
We commonly use the term “soon” when referring to Blizzard releases, because we know that no matter how hard we’re working to reach a target, we’re not going to compromise and launch a game before it’s ready. For Diablo III, we were aiming to launch by the end of 2011. As we’re announcing globally today, our new target for the game is early 2012.
While this news might not be a complete surprise, I know that many of you were hopeful that Diablo III would ship this year. We were too. However, this week we pulled together people from all of the teams involved with the game to decide whether we felt it would be ready before the end of December, and we grudgingly came to the conclusion that it would not. Ultimately, we feel that to deliver an awesome Diablo sequel that lives up to our expectations and yours as well, we should take a little more time and add further polish to a few different elements of the game.
WOD:
Quality is the most important thing, so if we have to make a choice between getting you something two months ago or getting you a great expansion in November, the choice is obvious.
Both had huge problems on launch, well beyond hardship that starcraft has seen as of yet. Blizzard gives those lines on every launch - and it's no more indicative of a quality release as "oh god we fucked this up, we can't launch like this or somebody will burn blizz HQ to the ground". D3 was D3 (needed a lot of patching and an expansion to fix most of the problems) and WOD went from 10 million subs at launch to 5 million subs in 7 months, with an expected freefall to 2-3 million subs before the next expansion launch (previous minimum in the history of the game since ~2006-2007 was 7.6m). Unarguably the worst expansion by far, yet it took them longer and they delayed it for "quality".
On August 26 2015 22:59 Hider wrote: Balance aside, LOTV - more than ever- suffers from the neverending midgame state. In order for a proper lategame dynamic to be established, you need large army sizes spread out all over the map. The income rate in LOTV is way too low and instead most games ends up being scrappy and snowbally.
Is that really a bad thing, though? One of the things I love about BW was how, after a certain point, the players just kept constantly trading units with each other. WoL and HotS' lategame annoyed me because it was way too easy to get to 200/200. After that, the players sat on their asses, built a huge bank and waited until they had the perfect composition. The sight of 200/200 armies doing nothing while the players built up huge banks is just terribly boring. Give me scrappy any day.
I totally agree with this, this is the main thing that made BW so awesome to watch, it wasn't the difficult macro, that part was only visible to skilled players, to everyone else what was so cool was to see constant small scale micro battles. Mid game is the best part of the game, it's the least deathball phase of the game at least, in HOTS mid game we see Prism harass, Medivac drops, Mutalisk control, and now we'll have Lurkers/Liberators/Uhh.."Disruptors"
Notice I said micro battles, not every unit in the game needs an activated ability, that's some moba shit, I do kind of like the Kog'Maw Ravager attack but I'm not a fan of the Adepts new ability, I don't know, I think Blizzard could just do a little bit better even though I'm a fan of the unit itself and what it brings to the table for Gateway unit compositions.
Notice I said micro battles, not every unit in the game needs an activated ability, that's some moba shit
I strongly prefer microable quirks with range, movement and agility
There are A LOT of units in the game now that have to stop and stare at an enemy unit for like 0.1 - 0.2 seconds when they fire, which prevents you from stutter stepping, kiting or bouncing in and out of combat effectively that didn't exist in BW and WC3 and they're really noticable. The engine change too reduces unit responsiveness. It feels to me as a protoss player with stalkers blinking, adepts ghosting, immortals now having to activate their shield to be decent, disruptors having to be manually clicked on, fired and then having their ball controlled, sentries having ff/guardian - there's just SO MANY activatable click abilities and it doesn't feel unique or fun.
If you have a unit that just moves and attacks and you make that fun like a brood war vulture or mutalisk, you've struck gold. If it moves and attacks but you can only amove with it and let it do its thing because it's slow, has to stop moving for 0.25 seconds before firing, can't move while channeling the shot etc so enemies catch up to it - that's nowhere near as usable or fun for either side.
On August 27 2015 08:30 CheeseCakez0 wrote: Can't wait for the game to come out.
Hop on the beta! If you didn't get access in the invite waves (which were pretty few, i think) or being in the top 20% of the ladder when they invited those, you can pre-purchase and get instant access with the prologue missions too. I didn't do those yet, but i wouldn't be able to stand watching a 9 month beta without access.
Blizzard is doing well and makes the game fair for every of the 3 races:
Zerg, Protoss and Terran have all now a reliable unit that deals aoe splash damage, fires constantly and offers micro on both sides and which main purpose is the infantry defence: Lurker, Colossus and Siege Tank.
And at the same time Zerg, Protoss and Terran have all now a kind of suicide aoe splash damage unit which creates tension: Baneling, Disruptor and Widow Mine.
I play Terran and I feel that while many players are frustrated because of the substantial changes to their own race, once you take a look at the overall impact of the most recent changes is becomes apparent that LOTV is really headed in a much better direction now.
For me, the removal of Chrono-boost, change to warp-ins, twelve worker start, ravager anti force field, and reinstatement of Cyclone anti-air early game really improve the game by leaps and bounds. Whatever happens in terms of balance will come with time.
The gameplay is going to be fantastic after a few LOTV patches if Blizzard continues down this road.
We've played 26 games of archon and only hit protoss once (when the player was random, landed toss and did that cannon rush) as far as i remember - i wonder how many protoss are playing the game in comparison to other races
if anyone hasn't seen the new warp in times, there's your example
I think this looks silly. If you want to REALLY nerf early offensive strats (and this is not such a nerf btw, just the first batch of units is later) just don't allow warp-ins at pylons (only at warpgates, warp prisms and around Nexi). This is a hundred times more elegant and simpler.
I think a slow as fuck warp in that's useless unless they're unknown or being heavily defended is a better middle ground than not being able to warp at all
I accidentally warped my first unit onto the wrong power field last game but was able to phase warp prism and turn the 15 second warp into 2 second warp, it actually sped up the remainder of the warp to 8x speed which was cool - saved me over 10 seconds (or losing a unit on the moveout). I thought it would be programmed in a more painful way and be locked in to the initial warp duration, but it was not
We're 13-2 in LOTV archon GM, not really sure of balance still. Killing a lot of terrans, but terrans are straight out doing a lot of stupid shit. Zerg games closer and harder, lurker spam seems very hard to deal with without quite a lot of disruptors or carriers and air exchanges are interesting - still no protoss.
Where are all the protoss? What are your rates of hitting them on ladder?
Viper seems very good. Not sure of balance in PvZ air but it's more micro intensive at least, had a game where we had a huge lead but got caught off guard in an engagement and got completely fucked by vipers (between abduct and the new AOE) and lost soon after. Carrier interceptor drop seems abusable but it also costs a huge amount of money, we're rarely in the position to say "Just drop the interceptors, pull back and spend 2.5 thousand minerals replacing them" without using sarcasm. Especially since lack of macro boosters and less minerals per base in LOTV, every mineral seems more precious
It's SUPER OBVIOUS to scout. If he wants to make the first 2 adepts immediately, he'll have to put the second gate in his first or second pylon 73 seconds before having any unit out capable of killing an scv or scout of any kind, you can see it. Depending on the map, a reaper can also arrive, scout and immediately leave, but that's less safe unless you know your timings.
If you either expanded from 1rax or you built 1-2 marines and then a reactor/techlab for your factory, WALL OFF. Bunker is really nice - a wall without a bunker might not help you enough, but a bunker without a wall is not great either. The worst thing that you can do is walk to lowground, put a bunch of scv's there, put a bunker down there with nothing else to wall off, and then not wall from your main to your natural either. You have layers of defense and the more you do well, the more chance you have of immediately shutting them down~
DO NOT DROP or split your army, faced 3 terrans recently who rushed a starport and lifted all their stuff up to go drop and then died immediately to 2gate adept attack that they scouted perfectly 3-4 minutes ago because 50% of their army is a quarter of the way across the map. The wall stops you from being vulnerable until prism comes out, which opens another timing window when terran isn't usually set up properly on 2 base and can lose some stuff before stabilizing
my opinion so far is that it's a little crazy how much damage you can do if the terran fucks up - but that he doesn't have to fuck up, i don't expect any good terran to leave themselves needlessly vulnerable. A lot of the damage that can be done comes from the super early warp prism following the 2gate adept, because of the 2 second warp in and ridiculous 6 range pickup which are two stats that could/should be adjusted if it were a problem.
Without that, adept would be a little overtuned (bit too good for 100/25, it can survive a widow mine hit which is HUGE) but several things could be different:
with wall, initial attack can't do anything. Sentries break down walls better than adepts do, which is to say basically not at all. without prism or against certain terran openings, you can't do followup damage easily
i see the potential for damage, but with warp prism not having 6 range pickup, warp being ~5 seconds instead of 2 and adept cost being adjusted - and most importantly, terrans on ladder having any idea how to open or scout rather than opening randomly - it wouldn't be a huge problem.
sry a little repetitive stuff there, just wrote out at once without a particular plan - and my experience is a little biased and undercertain, because LOTV archon is just sitting at the top of GM (as regular masters players, especially my friend who is at the high end of masters) and having 5-10 minute queues into what is often plat-dia league tier players. We'd win regardless of balance, though zergs are giving us the most problems
It's SUPER OBVIOUS to scout. If he wants to make the first 2 adepts immediately, he'll have to put the second gate in his first or second pylon 63 seconds before having any unit out capable of killing an scv or scout of any kind, you can see it. Depending on the map, a reaper can also arrive, scout and immediately leave, but that's less safe unless you know your timings.
If you either expanded from 1rax or you built 1-2 marines and then a reactor/techlab for your factory, WALL OFF. Bunker is really nice - a wall without a bunker might not help you enough, but a bunker without a wall is not great either. The worst thing that you can do is walk to lowground, put a bunch of scv's there, put a bunker down there with nothing else to wall off, and then not wall from your main to your natural either. You have layers of defense and the more you do well, the more chance you have of immediately shutting them down~
DO NOT DROP or split your army, faced 3 terrans recently who rushed a starport and lifted all their stuff up to go drop and then died immediately to 2gate adept attack that they scouted perfectly 3-4 minutes ago because 50% of their army is a quarter of the way across the map. The wall stops you from being vulnerable until prism comes out, which opens another timing window when terran isn't usually set up properly on 2 base and can lose some stuff before stabilizing
my opinion so far is that it's a little crazy how much damage you can do if the terran fucks up - but that he doesn't have to fuck up, i don't expect any good terran to leave themselves needlessly vulnerable. A lot of the damage that can be done comes from the super early warp prism following the 2gate adept, because of the 2 second warp in and ridiculous 6 range pickup which are two stats that could/should be adjusted if it were a problem.
Without that, adept would be a little overtuned (bit too good for 100/25, it can survive a widow mine hit which is HUGE) but several things could be different:
with wall, initial attack can't do anything. Sentries break down walls better than adepts do, which is to say basically not at all. without prism or against certain terran openings, you can't do followup damage easily
i see the potential for damage, but with warp prism not having 6 range pickup, warp being ~5 seconds instead of 2 and adept cost being adjusted - and most importantly, terrans on ladder having any idea how to open or scout rather than opening randomly - it wouldn't be a huge problem.
sry a little repetitive stuff there, just wrote out at once without a particular plan - and my experience is a little biased and undercertain, because LOTV archon is just sitting at the top of GM (as regular masters players, especially my friend who is at the high end of masters) and having 5-10 minute queues into what is often plat-dia league tier players. We'd win regardless of balance, though zergs are giving us the most problems
This is generous of you. Walling versus Toss is now mandatory, for sure, but the Warp Prism Adept timing is ridiculously brutal ... any insight here you can offer?
NOTE: My Archon team is also in GM--somehow--and we're definitely not GM-level players.
We've been practicing with 2gate - nexus - robo timing without additional gates for a while, i'm not sure what units is best to have against it
siege tank isn't that useful against buffed warp prism - they'll often drop in your mineral line or on the tank
widow mines don't oneshot adepts and can't move around a ton without risking being destroyed, so they're not very easy to use.
Just having a ton of units in general should help a lot. Adepts can't kill cyclones and a cyclone or viking will contribute a lot to denying or forcing the prism out
siege tank / 4 mines + medivac doesn't seem to do good on defense because people tend to have like 2 marines when rushing that stuff out while expanding
i've been trying out 2-3 cyclones with marines and its a decent catch all if they choose to open up with oracle, or if they choose to open up with warp prism. you do need to pull a couple scvs to assist with the attack, but i haven't been able to work out a timing i like while also getting an expansion
The cyclone upgrade? Not sure since nobody ever used it, but you probably don't need it. You just need to be able to stand and fight without a bunker if possible and have some anti-air pressure at that time. If you pull scv's and he can be allowed to sit within 6 range with a prism, the units won't die - compared to zerg which often puts queens on them, that creates a lot of pressure to leave, causes some micro problems (you can't lift up an adept that has a shade out, you have to cancel the shade first) and makes me slip and lose prisms occasionally, while terran doesn't seem to apply that pressure as often
Current TvP ... at least for my dumpster tier level ... seems really, really bad. It seems to be just mass Adapts. Like an endless stream of Adepts from a warp prism.
I don't know to be honest because i've never played midgame vs bio, only vs people with at least some mech (and cyclones and liberators both seem like solid units if you can build a core of them)
Upgraded adepts and chargelots seem very powerful - but i think fun powerful, i'd rather they take power away from other units than have only crap chargelots and stalkers that can't kill stuff past the early and early midgame without support from superunits like colossi. 2 sec warp is very good, probably too good for offense
the 2 sec warp (instead of ~3.8 sec previously) is occasionally difference between losing 2 probes and losing 4 probes to a surprise oracle. On offense, it's the difference between being able to phase and drop 2 units without worrying about the units or the prism taking significant damage
hit protoss a second time, lost to a 1base phoenix +adept all in while expanding ~ most of the other losses were to zerg
On August 29 2015 02:47 Cyro wrote: The cyclone upgrade? Not sure since nobody ever used it, but you probably don't need it. You just need to be able to stand and fight without a bunker if possible and have some anti-air pressure at that time. If you pull scv's and he can be allowed to sit within 6 range with a prism, the units won't die - compared to zerg which often puts queens on them, that creates a lot of pressure to leave, causes some micro problems (you can't lift up an adept that has a shade out, you have to cancel the shade first) and makes me slip and lose prisms occasionally, while terran doesn't seem to apply that pressure as often
i'd imagine that its because lock on is auto cast by default. 3 cyclones will do 72 dmg to a prism if they immediately cast lock on as soon as it phases and immediately unphases, 108 if it unphases as soon as warp-ins finish.
this would be nice if marines were able to keep up with the prism. realistically, the prism can dodge marines and only take mostly shield dmg, again assuming a perfect scenario for the terran where they lock all 3 cyclones on the moment it enters the base and begins to phase.
e: just did the math on the cyclone upgrade and it appears that only 2 cyclones can kill off a prism if they catch it the moment it phases. 3 can kill it if they don't warp anything in and phase in and out
i'd imagine that its because lock on is auto cast by default. 3 cyclones will do 72 dmg to a prism if they immediately cast lock on as soon as it phases and immediately unphases, 108 if it unphases as soon as warp-ins finish.
What about the part where the cyclone chases the prism across the entire base until the edge of the cliff + 10 range? I seem to lose all shields whenever even a single cyclone grabs me and i'm not at a cliff. I've never seen three at once in a warp prism harass stage, yet they do way more to deter me than widow mines and liberators.
Also my prism is very rarely phased, only to warp in units - and i often don't warp in unless there's potential to immediately do damage with it as the prism is already full and doing a bunch of damage without losing anything is better than doing a ton of damage but losing a ton of units too. If a terran pulls scv's and runs at me with like 8 marines i'l phase and warp 2 more adepts on the spot to take the engagement without losing any units for as long as possible
i'd imagine that its because lock on is auto cast by default. 3 cyclones will do 72 dmg to a prism if they immediately cast lock on as soon as it phases and immediately unphases, 108 if it unphases as soon as warp-ins finish.
What about the part where the cyclone chases the prism across the entire base until the edge of the cliff + 10 range? I seem to lose all shields whenever even a single cyclone grabs me and i'm not at a cliff. I've never seen three at once in a warp prism harass stage, yet they do way more to deter me than widow mines and liberators.
Also my prism is very rarely phased, only to warp in units - and i often don't warp in unless there's potential to immediately do damage with it as the prism is already full and doing a bunch of damage without losing anything is better than doing a ton of damage but losing a ton of units too. If a terran pulls scv's and runs at me with like 8 marines i'l phase and warp 2 more adepts on the spot to take the engagement without losing any units for as long as possible
that's just the math assuming the warp prism is going to warp stuff in and without micro
The cyclone has almost as high movespeed as the prism and the range is huge so once you're locked on it's just like "aah i have to run away for 10 seconds then wait a huge amount of time for shields to come back" and the adept warp prism damage is heavily based on a window of a few minutes of time, waiting will reduce the potential so much
On August 29 2015 03:13 Cyro wrote: The cyclone has almost as high movespeed as the prism and the range is huge so once you're locked on it's just like "aah i have to run away for 10 seconds then wait a huge amount of time for shields to come back" and the adept warp prism damage is heavily based on a window of a few minutes of time, waiting will reduce the potential so much
i think the cyclone has more speed doesn't it?
if it is just adept warp prism harass, im sure one cyclone just locked on will be enough
the math i was doing was more for adept + warp prism attacks, which is another thing i'm seeing frequently vs terran players
On August 29 2015 04:06 Cyro wrote: creep spread is insane, can't take a fourth base because 80% of the map is creep
Archon Mode is a different game, for sure, and I LOVE IT, but it certainly highlights issues that aren't really an issue in traditional 1v1. I.e., creep. DAT CREEP.
But at least Terran has more scans ... oh, wait. We don't. Because we don't build orbitals anymore ; )
Your cyclone versus Protoss is interesting, and I think it might be working strictly because of the meta. But a rush to any type of tech for defense feels so scary, especially if Toss chooses to play econ.
but it certainly highlights issues that aren't really an issue in traditional 1v1. I.e., creep. DAT CREEP.
High level zergs will spread creep - you need the larvae for ling styles but these guys just went like 5 hatches with 6 queens and stopped injecting for a minute or two, that was all it took
Your cyclone versus Protoss is interesting, and I think it might be working strictly because of the meta. But a rush to any type of tech for defense feels so scary, especially if Toss chooses to play econ.
It's not really a case of what to do as much as.. what not to do. If you 1rax expand without a wall against a protoss who goes gate-gate-robo-nexus, you'll die. If you go gas first to double liberator production in the very early game, you'll die. If you don't scout at all, rush a medivac, put most of your army into it and fly across the map while expanding, you'll die.
It's a great filter removing most of the stupid openings from the game around the 4-5 minute mark. The majority of terrans we faced seemed to not know what an adept was
some questionable control from me (Aeryn) ~ the "i think we can come back" comments were a little funny with perspective from both sides of the game because they took a lot of damage on and off camera and were pretty dead then
adept flank is cool, i love it (1:28:35 - 1:29:00ish on VOD time) and you can trap them better and stop retreat with adept shade
oops triple post damn. This thread is gonna die since everyone went to the other one (new changes announced) :D
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
. Great update from my point of view!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xk3wbKT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5RVFjGy.png)
