EPTAltough I'd rather have the macro mechanics removed, I like the new mule.
Community Feedback Update - September 4 - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
ganil
253 Posts
Altough I'd rather have the macro mechanics removed, I like the new mule. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On September 05 2015 04:14 stuchiu wrote: it is a worse version of the current drop upgrade from WoL/HotS. Barely anyone has used it since the days of fruitdealer nearly 5 years ago. There is no way in hell that the LOTV drop is worse than the HotS drop upgrade even at Lair. The problem with drop has always been that it takes forever to research. Even at lair it would only take you 30 seconds to get dropper'lords mobilized and ready to go in LOTV. It means that bane rain CAN be a thing now. It was never possible to use bane rain as a response to sentry based allins because it took so long to research. You could never have it out in time. But now you can have drop in action the moment your lair finishes. The only thing that this changes is that players can no longer use drop tech to reliably respond to cannon rushes, and as a response to other obnoxious pressures. Which I DO miss. But this is orders of magnitude better than what drop was before, even at lair. Drop is actually usable now, and can SAVE you money if you keep the (say 4 odd overlords you transform) alive. For doing roach doom drops and the like? Yeah it might be a minor nerf in terms of gas cost...But you're able to mobilize your drop a whole minute earlier than you were before (far more than just a minute I think, I'll get concrete #s in a bit). On all accounts but doom drops I'd say drop at lair is still a massive buff in LOTV. - It is a way to incorporate aggression against the other races for a relatively small cost, without investing a massive amount of gas into tech like nydus or mutalisk. It's a smart way to make use of forces you already have  . And it's definitely usable. Used almost every game against T/P that is taken to the mid / late game. - Out of all the myriad of crazy changes that have been happening in LOTV lately, overlord drop moved to Lair makes sense. The way Blizzard handled changes to OV drop in LOTV is quite elegant, actually. It's a wonderful change. But it still doesn't make up for what's going on  . And yes, I sure would love to have hatchery tech drop as well. But moving drop to Lair is understandable. What is key is that drop is now accessible, even if a little later than before . | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
the person in the fancy suit lol On September 05 2015 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Dream: Ghost damage is 10 +10 to bio This please. Nice CU overall, really like the points they make. | ||
|
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On September 05 2015 04:32 Heyjoray wrote: The corrupter change would turn it into a better mutalisk And their main weakness is their HP, which makes them almost unplayble when you have to fight liberator | ||
|
Gullis
Sweden740 Posts
| ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 05 2015 06:23 Big J wrote: lol This please. Nice CU overall, really like the points they make. ghost would become suddenly much worse vs zealots and the current adepts though, and I'm guessing drones are bio whereas probes are not?  | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On September 05 2015 06:30 Gullis wrote: I am a little surprised by the korean pro feedback. Or atleast that all aspects of the game was to hard. I would have guessed that they only though the game was to punishing, volatile and random. maybe DK misinterpreted it... Or he just asked a small number of koreans who have another opinion than the other koreans. + Show Spoiler + or he's just lying I remember flash and others complaining multiple times that macro is to easy in sc2 and players can't really differentiate themselves through macro. I doubt they have changed their opinion. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 05 2015 06:30 Gullis wrote: I am a little surprised by the korean pro feedback. Or atleast that all aspects of the game was to hard. I would have guessed that they only though the game was to punishing, volatile and random. Yet if you spend too much time reading the comments here--I love it here, don't get me wrong--you'd think the professional Koreans must be noobs that don't "truly" understand Starcraft. I just wish we'd move beyond the political talking points of "band-aids" and "gimmicks" and realize that any--literally any change--could be viewed as a band-aid, if that's the perspective you want to take. Instead, I refer to them as "changes". Gimmick is a cringe-worthy term almost as overused as cheese, all-in, or skill ceiling. I think the changes to Spawn Larva, Calldown MULE, and Chronoboost are moving the game in a fine direction, but are in need of some tweaks. I've seen some excellent selections for each, and some of the tweaks that will end up in the final product haven't even been thought up yet. The only real issue I see with auto-casting Spawn Larva, is that Spawn Larva is the production capability mechanic for Zerg (whereas MULE is enhanced mineral income for Terran, and Chronoboost changes the timing for things for Protoss). This auto-cast could theoretically put non-Zerg opponents up against mechanical perfection when it comes to keeping up with supply. I don't have the solution to this, of course, because I'm just some fucking guy, but I do suspect that the supply-dependent element of Spawn Larva is the real "thorn in the paw" of this whole so-called macro mechanics debate. | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
Same goes for injects and chrono, but I dont see injects being turned on manual as much of a benefit, except while defending so your queens dont turn around in the middle of a engagement, or what about nydusing queens, will they turn around on the other side of the map? | ||
|
Haighstrom
United Kingdom211 Posts
we highly doubt they will all be playing at the highest possible skill level due to these changes The point the pros are making is not that everyone is now playing at 100% macro capability. The point is that the difference in end result between 90% macro and 100% macro is now negligible, and all pros will quickly get above the 90% point once they have become accustomed to the new game. Further, we’re definitely not seeing perfect macro from any of the three races right now. While we're still in the beta... of course not. The problems will present themselves one year after the game is released (and it's too late to revert these changes), and everyone hits that 90% macro. Once everyone has learned to macro to the level of vastly diminishing returns in legacy (which will be far easier than in HOTS), the game will turn into a competition only of micro and strategy. And everyone who hasn't hit the level of macro where differences become negligible will still be complaining about the "macro gateway" to the game - i.e. the problem you were trying to solve in the first place will still be present! Games determined only by micro are boring to me, which is where I'm concerned we'll end up. Most players in HOTS choose zerg as a race because they value playing a macro based game. Bring back macro boosters. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2661 Posts
On September 05 2015 06:38 Charoisaur wrote: maybe DK misinterpreted it... Or he just asked a small number of koreans who have another opinion than the other koreans. + Show Spoiler + or he's just lying I remember flash and others complaining multiple times that macro is to easy in sc2 and players can't really differentiate themselves through macro. I doubt they have changed their opinion. Or he is telling the truth, after all I'm pretty sure he has talked with more korean progamers than anybody in TL | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On September 05 2015 07:09 NyxNax wrote: Can we get a new poll on the current macro mechanic changes? Im curious. I think having the choice between auto and manual is an ABSOLUTE MUST. I dont see any reason why they could not do this. If mules can only be dropped every xx seconds, why not be able to switch to manual so you can at least choose to not mine your main out ridiculously fast? Same thing goes for chrono and injects. I would understand this for inject larvae, but I fail to see the value in stopping mules or chrono. chrono gets you things that you have paid for into action faster (or in the case of warpgates, lets you pay for more stuff sooner) there is practically no situation when you would prefer to have less units/upgrades on the field rather than more, the one thing I can think of is if you are researching something (say, ground attack?) and the opponent is scouting, then you would prefer it if the oppoennt didn't know whether you researched attack or armor, you would rather have the forge finish the upgrade shortly after the scouter is dead and in that way there would theoretically be some value to delaying your upgrade, but if you want to do that, then just chronoboost your nexus or something. that is functionally identical to simply stopping chronoboosting your desired building. as for mule mining mineral lines out faster, which would you prefer? 50 minerals in a mineral field? or 50 minerals in your bank? the 50 minerals in your bank is better every time. the only time that you would rather have it in a mineral field is if the mineral field fills an important purpose in its location, perhaps its trapping an enemy unit or something, but that seems so niche that it is hardly relevant. | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
On September 05 2015 07:11 Haighstrom wrote: The point the pros are making is not that everyone is now playing at 100% macro capability. The point is that the difference in end result between 90% macro and 100% macro is now negligible, and all pros will quickly get above the 90% point once they have become accustomed to the new game. While we're still in the beta... of course not. The problems will present themselves one year after the game is released (and it's too late to revert these changes), and everyone hits that 90% macro. Once everyone has learned to macro to the level of vastly diminishing returns in legacy (which will be far easier than in HOTS), the game will turn into a competition only of micro and strategy. And everyone who hasn't hit the level of macro where differences become negligible will still be complaining about the "macro gateway" to the game - i.e. the problem you were trying to solve in the first place will still be present! Games determined only by micro are boring to me, which is where I'm concerned we'll end up. Most players in HOTS choose zerg as a race because they value playing a macro based game. Bring back macro boosters. While I agree that further down the road it will be harder to distinguish players macro skill, but this is still a strategy game, not just a micro and macro game. I do hope they find a balance though and allow players to choose between auto and manual | ||
|
Haighstrom
United Kingdom211 Posts
On September 05 2015 07:26 NyxNax wrote: While I agree that further down the road it will be harder to distinguish players macro skill, but this is still a strategy game, not just a micro and macro game. I do hope they find a balance though and allow players to choose between auto and manual Totally agree, ideally what I'd like to see is a choice (macro or micro). Whilst I personally genuinely enjoy manually injecting, I get that others don't. I also buy into the concept that especially for Zerg, injects are too all-or-nothing in HOTS (essentially HOTS macro is just injects, except in ZvT where creep is important too). Couldn't we try and balance a solution that gives players that want to manually use the macro boosters a small reward in production or economy, that could be balanced out by players who don't like doing it with things like extra micro, harassment or positioning instead. The idea here would be that the player that chooses to put the extra effort into macro doesn't automatically win, because it doesn't mean as much as it used to, but for those of us who want to play a primarily macro-based game can continue to do so and not be automatically disadvantaged either. With something like this, surely everybody wins? I'd be happy with something different to do from injecting (if the viewer appeal is something anyone really cares about), but something different to controlling units/creating buildings is important to me. I like SC2 being a combination of multiple different and varied skills and I'm upset that one is being taken away. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On September 05 2015 07:18 Lexender wrote: Or he is telling the truth, after all I'm pretty sure he has talked with more korean progamers than anybody in TL Now would be a good time for these teamliquid interviews of pros we had before every balance patch. I would be curious to know which pros said this and their race, because zerg does feel stupid and easy to me in terms of macro, and I have difficulties imagining pros player going to David Kim and tell him 'hey, you should really make inject as autocast, the game will be so awesome!' | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On September 05 2015 06:38 ROOTFayth wrote: ghost would become suddenly much worse vs zealots and the current adepts though, and I'm guessing drones are bio whereas probes are not? Ghost would be the same against Zealots (bio tag). Ghost would become much more useful against Zerg comps (Ghost is dead unit v Z currently, a buff wouldn't hurt). Ghost would remain useful against Adept. Ghost would become oddly worse against probes (but if you EMP first it is similar, but but 1 base ghost rushes were arguably too strong versus probes). | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
On September 05 2015 07:24 Roblin wrote: I would understand this for inject larvae, but I fail to see the value in stopping mules or chrono. chrono gets you things that you have paid for into action faster (or in the case of warpgates, lets you pay for more stuff sooner) there is practically no situation when you would prefer to have less units/upgrades on the field rather than more, the one thing I can think of is if you are researching something (say, ground attack?) and the opponent is scouting, then you would prefer it if the oppoennt didn't know whether you researched attack or armor, you would rather have the forge finish the upgrade shortly after the scouter is dead and in that way there would theoretically be some value to delaying your upgrade, but if you want to do that, then just chronoboost your nexus or something. that is functionally identical to simply stopping chronoboosting your desired building. as for mule mining mineral lines out faster, which would you prefer? 50 minerals in a mineral field? or 50 minerals in your bank? the 50 minerals in your bank is better every time. the only time that you would rather have it in a mineral field is if the mineral field fills an important purpose in its location, perhaps its trapping an enemy unit or something, but that seems so niche that it is hardly relevant. I understand about the chrono, but I'm not exactly sure what your talking about with the MULE, obviously youd rather have the minerals in your bank, my point was being able to choose where you drop it. For instance, dropping it on the clumps that have the most minerals, dropping them on your natural or 3rd, instead of random clumps in your main. Since they dont require energy now and can only be dropped every xx seconds, theres no mule hammering, so why not be able to choose where you drop it? Yes youd have to be on point, similar to injects in hots, to drop the MULE soon as its ready, but its a strategic choice about where you drop them and something that better players can choose to do(should be able to choose to do). Also, what about calling down a MULE to repair? | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 05 2015 08:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Ghost would be the same against Zealots (bio tag). Ghost would become much more useful against Zerg comps (Ghost is dead unit v Z currently, a buff wouldn't hurt). Ghost would remain useful against Adept. Ghost would become oddly worse against probes (but if you EMP first it is similar, but but 1 base ghost rushes were arguably too strong versus probes). A 200/100 unit that needs a Cloak upgrade is too strong versus workers? It's a super high-risk play, imo. You either kill 75% of the probes and win, or lose pathetically because you have < 5 units that can shoot stuff. I would love for the Ghost to get some love, but I don't like the vs Bio tag idea. +$0.02 | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
I really hate the adept. It seems like it's always either hard-countered or it counters something too hard itself. Also, the old overlord drop upgrade was fine in HoTS. As someone who uses mass drops more than most, I hate having to morph each individual overlord. It feels like a huge nerf, and the point was to buff drops. Alright, obviously I'm no pro but I'm going to try making a bold prediction here: If balance doesn't change too much between then and now. A popular style of ZVP will be ling/bane drops (carpet bombs) with double upgrades into ultras eventually. This comp will force archon/immortal and then adding infestors with NP will counter this. Right now so many people are claiming infestors are useless and want NP removed. But I think it's ridiculously powerful in very specific situations. I have like a 70% winrate in zvp (Hots) doing this and I win all my macro games because it's so strong (even though my macro is trash). | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10824 Posts
| ||
| ||
