|
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders.
When the upgrades for the adept are changed then this unit should be balanced.
Also I made the experiences that the high damage per second rate of stimmed Terran bio with Medivac support wins against the slow damage per second rate of adepts.
Furthermore the Adept is looking light and not armored.
And armored Adepts would overlap with Stalkers.
No protoss will ever build an armored adept when they can build instead a stalker which has more attack range, has more mobility and movement speed, deals more damage per second, can shot air units and has the ability to teleport with blinkmicro.
Please just keep the adept light armored and viable.
|
On September 05 2015 06:38 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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 +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.
if you have this little faith in DK and also in the people above him who put him in this position then i suggest you pick another game. even if he is lying and he is incompetent and is fired tomorrow ... the LotV Train is already going 200 KM/H down the going gold release track and ain't nuttin' stoppin' it. ATVI ain't changin' a release date for this financially meaningless title, nor will they allow it to damage their brand.
myself, i think DK is doing a great job and i'm having a blast playing LotV.
this will probably be the swan song for the RTS genre in terms of big budget releases..
so i'm going to enjoy ...
every second of every Cinematic,
every milestone required for every campaign mission..
and every cheeseball line of b-movie level dialogue in the campaign.
|
On September 05 2015 04:14 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:10 Masada714 wrote:
I don't understand how they determined that Overlord drops moving to Lair is too big of a nerf? The patch has only been out a day, give it some more time before deciding that it is too much. 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.
It's actually better in its current state. The upgrade takes very little time so it can be used impulsively, it also cost less until a certain threshold (8 overlords - usually 2 is enough for what you want)
|
On September 06 2015 00:25 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:
Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran? Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming. Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol. I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs* You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable. This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human.. Thanks. It's a silly, but persistent conversation. Kinda like the skill ceiling one. Both unnecessary, save for maybe philosophical exercise. The professional commentators use the term cheese, of course, perpetuating the negative connotation and pejorative usage here in the community. Any type of qualifiers I see, like high risk, relies on hiding information, easier to execute than it is to hold, etc ... It's all completely subjective and relative, or, in other words, near-meaningless. This, and all-in. Ugh. Anyway ... Big J, They originally had the upgrade on the Tech Lab and then moved it, because it belongs as unlockable via Armory. So the hellbat Liberator rush attack was difficult to hold. Are there not dozens of difficult-to-hold rush attacks in this game? Isn't that kinda the idea of a RTS, no?
And they are thinking about moving the upgrade on the techlab again which I think is too much of a nerf and I think moving it to the Fusion Core or some similar solution would be better than reintroducing an upgrade for a reactored unit.
|
On September 05 2015 17:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:37 jakethesnake wrote:
Game is too easy or too difficult due to macro changes discussions The game is always as hard as your opponent. Even if every can macro perfectly (which they absolutely false), so what? Everyone can a-move perfectly too.
You have only a 50% chance to win flipping a coin.
That doesn't make flipping coins a hard game.
|
On September 06 2015 00:46 Powerfusion wrote:
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders.
Armored Adepts being unviable against Marauders is bad, but Marines being unviable against any kind of Adepts is A-OK?
|
Anyone short of a korean pro whining about the game difficulty is just wasting time at this point; and koreans actually are asking for the change. So... ?.
|
On September 06 2015 02:52 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 00:46 Powerfusion wrote:
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders. Armored Adepts being unviable against Marauders is bad, but Marines being unviable against any kind of Adepts is A-OK?
I definitely like the idea of a bio counter to the Adept. Currently by the time marauders have almost killed Adepts all of your mineral line is dead and the Adepts teleport away, yet Blizz touted the Marauder as a counter.
So go for this change I am really on board with this one. The Liberator AG I would prefer some other way of delaying strong Liberator pushes tbh.
Edit: It should be obvious that I am thinking about the early game here. Adepts are much less powerful later on.
|
On September 06 2015 02:48 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 17:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 05 2015 03:37 jakethesnake wrote:
Game is too easy or too difficult due to macro changes discussions The game is always as hard as your opponent. Even if every can macro perfectly (which they absolutely false), so what? Everyone can a-move perfectly too. You have only a 50% chance to win flipping a coin. That doesn't make flipping coins a hard game.
hard what? hard to learn, hard to win, more stressful or what?
for me it's as hard to win in coinflipping as it is to win an sc2 game.
The same is true for a bronze player since he only plays vs other bronzes.
If you mean with "hard" stressful or hard to learn then you may have a point but in sc2 it is as hard to win as it is in any other game where you have 50% winrate.
|
The issue I have with the armored thing is that Adepts are still going to come out of the gate super strong against marines but when enough Marauders hit the field nobody will touch them, which sucks because Adepts already suffer from the "Too OP from the get go and UP when mid game get's rolling" syndrome.
Adept
- Nerf damage vs. light for early game balance
- Twilight upgrade that enables a small Mutalisk type of splash (with diminishing damage per splash) so Adepts can still take on the 2/2 medivac supported bio.
I don't understand the complexity regarding this unit, it's just too strong early and not strong after it's early, just kind of tip the scales a bit. No need for this silly armor change that is going to radically alter then way the Adept interacts with other units.
Plus it just adds yet another Protoss ground unit to the list that absolutely will not be able to fight against Lurkers, and while I love Lurkers and don't think they are "op" necessarily they are extreeemely strong vs. gateway unit comps and making the Adept armored would only exaggerate this.
|
What do you guys think about a free hatch tech upgrade that unlocks overlord drops?
If the numbers are tuned right I would imagine it to be able to hit as early as it did pre-patch if you choose to prioritize it over queens. If you go economy focused you could still get it before lair but later than it was before the patch.
A free upgrade might seem a bit odd, but I think it could be a decent solution
|
On September 06 2015 04:52 padiseal2 wrote:
What do you guys think about a free hatch tech upgrade that unlocks overlord drops?
If the numbers are tuned right I would imagine it to be able to hit as early as it did pre-patch if you choose to prioritize it over queens. If you go economy focused you could still get it before lair but later than it was before the patch.
A free upgrade might seem a bit odd, but I think it could be a decent solution
I think that overlords dropping is always going to be about gimmick plays or all ins due to how slow Overlords are (even WITH speed) making them unreliable i.e. your only going to make it work by catching bad players off guard or tailoring some all in specifically for it.
Plus, it being able to bypass walls pre lair tech makes ZvZ terrible to play because there is no stable safe builds.
I would way rather they just give Overseers the ability to drop after you morph them from Overlords, the speed of Overssers combined with the detection/forward scouting ability will make it a useful drop ship that doesn't hit too much earlier then P or T drop play.
Zerg should have GOOD drop options, not gimmick drop options, any unit you send in with Overlords is going to die, with Overseers at least you might be able to save them.
|
On September 06 2015 02:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 00:25 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:
Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran? Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming. Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol. I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs* You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable. This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human.. Thanks. It's a silly, but persistent conversation. Kinda like the skill ceiling one. Both unnecessary, save for maybe philosophical exercise. The professional commentators use the term cheese, of course, perpetuating the negative connotation and pejorative usage here in the community. Any type of qualifiers I see, like high risk, relies on hiding information, easier to execute than it is to hold, etc ... It's all completely subjective and relative, or, in other words, near-meaningless. This, and all-in. Ugh. Anyway ... Big J, They originally had the upgrade on the Tech Lab and then moved it, because it belongs as unlockable via Armory. So the hellbat Liberator rush attack was difficult to hold. Are there not dozens of difficult-to-hold rush attacks in this game? Isn't that kinda the idea of a RTS, no? And they are thinking about moving the upgrade on the techlab again which I think is too much of a nerf and I think moving it to the Fusion Core or some similar solution would be better than reintroducing an upgrade for a reactored unit.
Right, right. I knew what you meant about the tech lab.
But are you suggesting that it's it'd become an upgrade researched at the Fusion Core?
|
On September 06 2015 05:31 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 02:21 Big J wrote:On September 06 2015 00:25 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:
[quote]
Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming. Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol. I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs* You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable. This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human.. Thanks. It's a silly, but persistent conversation. Kinda like the skill ceiling one. Both unnecessary, save for maybe philosophical exercise. The professional commentators use the term cheese, of course, perpetuating the negative connotation and pejorative usage here in the community. Any type of qualifiers I see, like high risk, relies on hiding information, easier to execute than it is to hold, etc ... It's all completely subjective and relative, or, in other words, near-meaningless. This, and all-in. Ugh. Anyway ... Big J, They originally had the upgrade on the Tech Lab and then moved it, because it belongs as unlockable via Armory. So the hellbat Liberator rush attack was difficult to hold. Are there not dozens of difficult-to-hold rush attacks in this game? Isn't that kinda the idea of a RTS, no? And they are thinking about moving the upgrade on the techlab again which I think is too much of a nerf and I think moving it to the Fusion Core or some similar solution would be better than reintroducing an upgrade for a reactored unit. Right, right. I knew what you meant about the tech lab. But are you suggesting that it's it'd become an upgrade researched at the Fusion Core?
No, not an upgrade. Just like it is right now with the armory, but with the fusion core. Once you have a fusion core you just have the air-to-ground mode available. Which costs as much as a specific upgrade (or an armory) but also has other utility and doesn't require you to build a second starport with techlab, or stifle your air production by switching onto a techlab when you actually want reactored units.
Even techwise it would be much more fitting. Air unit unlocks its power through the air tech building.
|
On September 06 2015 05:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 05:31 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 02:21 Big J wrote:On September 06 2015 00:25 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:
[quote]
Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming. Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol. I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs* You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable. This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human.. Thanks. It's a silly, but persistent conversation. Kinda like the skill ceiling one. Both unnecessary, save for maybe philosophical exercise. The professional commentators use the term cheese, of course, perpetuating the negative connotation and pejorative usage here in the community. Any type of qualifiers I see, like high risk, relies on hiding information, easier to execute than it is to hold, etc ... It's all completely subjective and relative, or, in other words, near-meaningless. This, and all-in. Ugh. Anyway ... Big J, They originally had the upgrade on the Tech Lab and then moved it, because it belongs as unlockable via Armory. So the hellbat Liberator rush attack was difficult to hold. Are there not dozens of difficult-to-hold rush attacks in this game? Isn't that kinda the idea of a RTS, no? And they are thinking about moving the upgrade on the techlab again which I think is too much of a nerf and I think moving it to the Fusion Core or some similar solution would be better than reintroducing an upgrade for a reactored unit. Right, right. I knew what you meant about the tech lab. But are you suggesting that it's it'd become an upgrade researched at the Fusion Core? No, not an upgrade. Just like it is right now with the armory, but with the fusion core. Once you have a fusion core you just have the air-to-ground mode available. Which costs as much as a specific upgrade (or an armory) but also has other utility and doesn't require you to build a second starport with techlab, or stifle your air production by switching onto a techlab when you actually want reactored units. Even techwise it would be much more fitting. Air unit unlocks its power through the air tech building.
Ahhh, gotcha. And it would slow this down a bit too, as you can't start the Fusion Core until the Starport is finished, as opposed to the Armory which could be building while the Starport is building. This would essentially nerf the hellbat liberator attack out of the game though, as you can't possibly fast tech to Armory and Fusion core, I mean ... can you? So while it might fix the timing of the Liberator Ground Mode (which isn't any more a problem than a variety of rush plays that exist for the other races), it completely destroys the hellbat element of the play. Thoughts?
|
On September 06 2015 06:46 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 05:49 Big J wrote:On September 06 2015 05:31 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 02:21 Big J wrote:On September 06 2015 00:25 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:
[quote]
SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese.
[quote]
Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming. Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol. I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs* You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable. This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human.. Thanks. It's a silly, but persistent conversation. Kinda like the skill ceiling one. Both unnecessary, save for maybe philosophical exercise. The professional commentators use the term cheese, of course, perpetuating the negative connotation and pejorative usage here in the community. Any type of qualifiers I see, like high risk, relies on hiding information, easier to execute than it is to hold, etc ... It's all completely subjective and relative, or, in other words, near-meaningless. This, and all-in. Ugh. Anyway ... Big J, They originally had the upgrade on the Tech Lab and then moved it, because it belongs as unlockable via Armory. So the hellbat Liberator rush attack was difficult to hold. Are there not dozens of difficult-to-hold rush attacks in this game? Isn't that kinda the idea of a RTS, no? And they are thinking about moving the upgrade on the techlab again which I think is too much of a nerf and I think moving it to the Fusion Core or some similar solution would be better than reintroducing an upgrade for a reactored unit. Right, right. I knew what you meant about the tech lab. But are you suggesting that it's it'd become an upgrade researched at the Fusion Core? No, not an upgrade. Just like it is right now with the armory, but with the fusion core. Once you have a fusion core you just have the air-to-ground mode available. Which costs as much as a specific upgrade (or an armory) but also has other utility and doesn't require you to build a second starport with techlab, or stifle your air production by switching onto a techlab when you actually want reactored units. Even techwise it would be much more fitting. Air unit unlocks its power through the air tech building. Ahhh, gotcha. And it would slow this down a bit too, as you can't start the Fusion Core until the Starport is finished, as opposed to the Armory which could be building while the Starport is building. This would essentially nerf the hellbat liberator attack out of the game though, as you can't possibly fast tech to Armory and Fusion core, I mean ... can you? So while it might fix the timing of the Liberator Ground Mode (which isn't any more a problem than a variety of rush plays that exist for the other races), it completely destroys the hellbat element of the play. Thoughts?
Hellbats are only made because they dont cost gas and because you are already building an armory, liberator harass would still be there, you can still have hellions, or marines or whatever supporting, you wouldn't just be capable of doing a big 1 base push that wins the game with them, and thats ok.
Also they should remove the ravager upgrade, ravagers already counter liberators enough, the only problem was the timings. Not mention that this would also make ravager counter siege tanks even more, and tanks suck a lot already.
|
Just make adept do 22 dmg to light, I don't see a big deal that they can't two shot SCVs.
|
Good ideas this time.
Glad to hear what the Koreans really think. But it seems like theyre not totally on board the new concept either? Perhaps a little more time could be spent on this?
As a Protoss, Photon Overcharge on pylons is really weird. I'd just prefer the old style.
|
If adept is so hard to counter with tier 1 units, why don't just move it up to a higher tech level? It would be proper to have the twilight council as the building to unlock it, which goes perfectly with the other gateway units as it provides charge and blink upgrades.
|
while the proposed changes are mostly good, these are all balance changes
does this mean the horrible macro system that we have now is here to stay, and there is no hope of reverting to last patch, which was awesome?
also, adepts being armored is unintuitive as hell
i would just further reduce their attack rate, that would keep them good for harass, but reduce their dps in the ball
or reduce their flat dmg while keeping their dmg against light the same, making stalkers dominate them
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
