|
On September 06 2015 15:02 summerloud wrote:
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
Plz no  . Don't make them even more of a rock, paper, scissors unit.
|
On September 06 2015 10:35 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 06:46 TimeSpiral wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
That play is not a free win, as has been demonstrated over and over. It's a strong and dedicated attack. And what we're talking about is that this [liberator] nerf doesn't just move the timing back, like they said they wanted, it essentially removes that play from the meta. And we're just discussing if this is really the right move. Maybe it is.
|
On September 07 2015 00:23 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 10:35 Lexender wrote:On September 06 2015 06:46 TimeSpiral wrote: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:
[quote]
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. That play is not a free win, as has been demonstrated over and over. It's a strong and dedicated attack. And what we're talking about is that this [liberator] nerf doesn't just move the timing back, like they said they wanted, it essentially removes that play from the meta. And we're just discussing if this is really the right move. Maybe it is.
Would love to see that specific play removed from the meta... :-P. Early liberators just feel not fun to play against. Similar to early oracles. If they could remove those early on too....
|
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again?
|
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want.
|
On September 07 2015 18:09 JCoto wrote:
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again?
I think it may be a simple two-part fix: (1) reduce damage to light a tiny bit so it three-shots workers and marines. (2) Give the shade a cancel threshold, and if it has been canceled, give it some sort of perceptible tell (to help with TvP). Or just nix the teleporting of the shade. It's already a pretty awesome free invulnerable scout.
On September 07 2015 18:44 Big J wrote:
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want.
Interesting take, and you might be on to something. From a Terran perspective it feels like: "kill 20+ drones in the early-to-mid game, or do game-ending damage or Zerg's economy will snowball and the game will be over before the midgame even starts". Just giving you my ignorant scrubby perspective. Maybe Zerg doesn't have a ton of early game harass options because their economic and map control options are so powerful?
Personally, I think moving the Overlord drops to Lair is probably a mistake, for the reasons you mention, but I'm wondering if my point is at all valid. Would fairly simple, low-cost harass units make Zerg's economic openings even more difficult to deal with?
|
On September 07 2015 22:56 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:09 JCoto wrote:
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again? I think it may be a simple two-part fix: (1) reduce damage to light a tiny bit so it three-shots workers and marines. (2) Give the shade a cancel threshold, and if it has been canceled, give it some sort of perceptible tell (to help with TvP). Or just nix the teleporting of the shade. It's already a pretty awesome free invulnerable scout. Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:44 Big J wrote:
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want. Interesting take, and you might be on to something. From a Terran perspective it feels like: "kill 20+ drones in the early-to-mid game, or do game-ending damage or Zerg's economy will snowball and the game will be over before the midgame even starts". Just giving you my ignorant scrubby perspective. Maybe Zerg doesn't have a ton of early game harass options because their economic and map control options are so powerful?Personally, I think moving the Overlord drops to Lair is probably a mistake, for the reasons you mention, but I'm wondering if my point is at all valid. Would fairly simple, low-cost harass units make Zerg's economic openings even more difficult to deal with?
Ha, yeah you are basically writing that part that I deleted because the post got excessive. Trying to put it short, Zerg had that problem even more when the game came out because everyone was allowed to open 1basish against them and you literally couldn't do any damage as zerg when your opponent opened tank+banshee before CC. So what blizzard did is they buffed zerg defense and nerfed P/T opening attacks until we reached a balance/metagame state in which zerg could freely drone up and their everyone could only do the economic openings. And based on that we now have some Zerg allins like roach/bane in ZvT, since Terrans kind of have to open 3CC and metagame stuff like that. But in essence, zerg's design with the T1-T2-T3 structure layout makes it nearly impossible to do anything that isn't on the T1 level early. It's supereasy to scout and heavily delayed. And on that T1 level, zerg hardly has any trickery. Obviously there is the problem with larva and just overruning your opponent when you give zerg something strong early, but I find it peculiar when blizzard is OK with stuff like adepts early, but zerg must not ever bypass walls. I personally would like the opposite direction - everyone should have to respect walls and terrain in the first few mins - but only given the one side the tools and not the other one is probably the worst way of doing it. Because then you end up with the slippery slope of "zerg gets compensated by getting default advantages if you don't do anything to them".
TT, it's gotten excessive again.
|
On September 07 2015 23:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 22:56 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 18:09 JCoto wrote:
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again? I think it may be a simple two-part fix: (1) reduce damage to light a tiny bit so it three-shots workers and marines. (2) Give the shade a cancel threshold, and if it has been canceled, give it some sort of perceptible tell (to help with TvP). Or just nix the teleporting of the shade. It's already a pretty awesome free invulnerable scout. On September 07 2015 18:44 Big J wrote:
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want. Interesting take, and you might be on to something. From a Terran perspective it feels like: "kill 20+ drones in the early-to-mid game, or do game-ending damage or Zerg's economy will snowball and the game will be over before the midgame even starts". Just giving you my ignorant scrubby perspective. Maybe Zerg doesn't have a ton of early game harass options because their economic and map control options are so powerful?Personally, I think moving the Overlord drops to Lair is probably a mistake, for the reasons you mention, but I'm wondering if my point is at all valid. Would fairly simple, low-cost harass units make Zerg's economic openings even more difficult to deal with? Ha, yeah you are basically writing that part that I deleted because the post got excessive. Trying to put it short, Zerg had that problem even more when the game came out because everyone was allowed to open 1basish against them and you literally couldn't do any damage as zerg when your opponent opened tank+banshee before CC. So what blizzard did is they buffed zerg defense and nerfed P/T opening attacks until we reached a balance/metagame state in which zerg could freely drone up and their everyone could only do the economic openings. And based on that we now have some Zerg allins like roach/bane in ZvT, since Terrans kind of have to open 3CC and metagame stuff like that. But in essence, zerg's design with the T1-T2-T3 structure layout makes it nearly impossible to do anything that isn't on the T1 level early. It's supereasy to scout and heavily delayed. And on that T1 level, zerg hardly has any trickery. Obviously there is the problem with larva and just overruning your opponent when you give zerg something strong early, but I find it peculiar when blizzard is OK with stuff like adepts early, but zerg must not ever bypass walls. I personally would like the opposite direction - everyone should have to respect walls and terrain in the first few mins - but only given the one side the tools and not the other one is probably the worst way of doing it. Because then you end up with the slippery slope of "zerg gets compensated by getting default advantages if you don't do anything to them". TT, it's gotten excessive again.
On the huge 4-player maps, like Ruins, Zerg can easily 3-hatch and by the time you get across the map with any type of early-game army they have more bases, more drones, and more fighting units. Which means, like you said, you have to open some sort of flying harass unit (as Terran) and try to quickly build 3-CCs and hope Zerg doesn't decide to build units. TvZ is a ... difficult matchup, atm. Either way, having some early game harassing as Zerg would make quick 3-hatching even more free than it already seems to be (on big maps).
|
On September 08 2015 01:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 23:14 Big J wrote:On September 07 2015 22:56 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 18:09 JCoto wrote:
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again? I think it may be a simple two-part fix: (1) reduce damage to light a tiny bit so it three-shots workers and marines. (2) Give the shade a cancel threshold, and if it has been canceled, give it some sort of perceptible tell (to help with TvP). Or just nix the teleporting of the shade. It's already a pretty awesome free invulnerable scout. On September 07 2015 18:44 Big J wrote:
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want. Interesting take, and you might be on to something. From a Terran perspective it feels like: "kill 20+ drones in the early-to-mid game, or do game-ending damage or Zerg's economy will snowball and the game will be over before the midgame even starts". Just giving you my ignorant scrubby perspective. Maybe Zerg doesn't have a ton of early game harass options because their economic and map control options are so powerful?Personally, I think moving the Overlord drops to Lair is probably a mistake, for the reasons you mention, but I'm wondering if my point is at all valid. Would fairly simple, low-cost harass units make Zerg's economic openings even more difficult to deal with? Ha, yeah you are basically writing that part that I deleted because the post got excessive. Trying to put it short, Zerg had that problem even more when the game came out because everyone was allowed to open 1basish against them and you literally couldn't do any damage as zerg when your opponent opened tank+banshee before CC. So what blizzard did is they buffed zerg defense and nerfed P/T opening attacks until we reached a balance/metagame state in which zerg could freely drone up and their everyone could only do the economic openings. And based on that we now have some Zerg allins like roach/bane in ZvT, since Terrans kind of have to open 3CC and metagame stuff like that. But in essence, zerg's design with the T1-T2-T3 structure layout makes it nearly impossible to do anything that isn't on the T1 level early. It's supereasy to scout and heavily delayed. And on that T1 level, zerg hardly has any trickery. Obviously there is the problem with larva and just overruning your opponent when you give zerg something strong early, but I find it peculiar when blizzard is OK with stuff like adepts early, but zerg must not ever bypass walls. I personally would like the opposite direction - everyone should have to respect walls and terrain in the first few mins - but only given the one side the tools and not the other one is probably the worst way of doing it. Because then you end up with the slippery slope of "zerg gets compensated by getting default advantages if you don't do anything to them". TT, it's gotten excessive again. On the huge 4-player maps, like Ruins, Zerg can easily 3-hatch and by the time you get across the map with any type of early-game army they have more bases, more drones, and more fighting units. Which means, like you said, you have to open some sort of flying harass unit (as Terran) and try to quickly build 3-CCs and hope Zerg doesn't decide to build units. TvZ is a ... difficult matchup, atm. Either way, having some early game harassing as Zerg would make quick 3-hatching even more free than it already seems to be (on big maps).
I thought that having singular units that were super strong and early tech are automatically out because of how easy it is to mass produce them. Like if you could make banshees from larva? Way OP. I liked the idea of overlord drop being hatch tech but being put on a hatchery again instead of the overlord, so that it competes with queen production and thus limits macro. Maybe (and this could be too complicated) if larva (or at least inject) stopped being produced while the hatchery was upgrading or building a queen? Then you have this stronger tradeoff of time to balance units vs tech. Or slightly more units now versus many more units later.
|
On September 07 2015 18:44 Big J wrote:
@Blizzard: Any way to make zerg less of a "always defend early" race? Throw us the one or other bone please, it's getting annoying. Terran has banshees and liberators and medivacs and hellions and reapers. Protoss gets super-warp prisms and adepts that tunnel-move whereever they want and oracles and phoenixes. Meanwhile zerg has to go completely allin if they want to not sit back early.
It's getting annoying because I know you have understood the problem seeing how you buffed drops to T1 and introduced the strong ravager to begin with and why you tried burrow movement without an extra upgrade. But we are going to be back to WoL/HotS defensive play or allin every game soon while the other races are free to enter my base whenever they want.
There isn't really a way due to how Zerg is designed. If you are making units, you aren't making drones.
|
On September 07 2015 18:09 JCoto wrote:
Oh god, Adepts being armored, please not.... Bio will shredd Toss so comfy again.
Could we please have the old version of the adept tested and something for Ghost/Reaper instead of just making MMM the ultimate solution again?
Wouldn't Mech still the better solution vs Protoss in LOTV?
|
I've seen the claim in this thread that Flash has previously complained about the lack of macro as a differentiating quality between players in SC2. The argument is then presented that removing macro mechanics will make this phenomenon worse.
Brood War didn't even have macro mechanics. The difficulties there revolved around managing huge base counts and armies on multiple fronts.
Don't forget that all of the first changes introduced to LOTV were intended to make it more like Brood War in this respect. Get rid of the death-balls, get rid of the macro mechanics (therefore increasing the imperative to harass workers, which have become more valuable), increase base counts, and add more harassment options in general. The economy scales very quickly in this expansion, requiring players to take 3rd and 4th bases much more quickly than before. I don't think it will be uncommon to see people floating resources during this phase of the game (especially when it first releases), just because the battles and harassment don't really let up either.
I do think Flash could potentially be more suited to LOTV than HOTS, although for him personally I think all the complicated new unit interactions may prove challenging. Flash doesn't seem like he can quite get a handle on all the crazy tactics in HOTS, and LOTV just amps that up even more. Then again, if he builds more than everybody else, maybe it wont matter.
|
On September 08 2015 15:17 alexanderzero wrote:
I've seen the claim in this thread that Flash has previously complained about the lack of macro as a differentiating quality between players in SC2. The argument is then presented that removing macro mechanics will make this phenomenon worse.
Brood War didn't even have macro mechanics. The difficulties there revolved around managing huge base counts and armies on multiple fronts.
Don't forget that all of the first changes introduced to LOTV were intended to make it more like Brood War in this respect. Get rid of the death-balls, get rid of the macro mechanics (therefore increasing the imperative to harass workers, which have become more valuable), increase base counts, and add more harassment options in general. The economy scales very quickly in this expansion, requiring players to take 3rd and 4th bases much more quickly than before. I don't think it will be uncommon to see people floating resources during this phase of the game (especially when it first releases), just because the battles and harassment don't really let up either.
I do think Flash could potentially be more suited to LOTV than HOTS, although for him personally I think all the complicated new unit interactions may prove challenging. Flash doesn't seem like he can quite get a handle on all the crazy tactics in HOTS, and LOTV just amps that up even more. Then again, if he builds more than everybody else, maybe it wont matter.
It wasn't "managing huge bases" as much as it was lack of automine and MBS. This made BW significantly harder than SC2 even with macro mechanics. Granted, Terran always had the least punishing macro mechanic with mules.
|
On September 08 2015 16:45 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 15:17 alexanderzero wrote:
I've seen the claim in this thread that Flash has previously complained about the lack of macro as a differentiating quality between players in SC2. The argument is then presented that removing macro mechanics will make this phenomenon worse.
Brood War didn't even have macro mechanics. The difficulties there revolved around managing huge base counts and armies on multiple fronts.
Don't forget that all of the first changes introduced to LOTV were intended to make it more like Brood War in this respect. Get rid of the death-balls, get rid of the macro mechanics (therefore increasing the imperative to harass workers, which have become more valuable), increase base counts, and add more harassment options in general. The economy scales very quickly in this expansion, requiring players to take 3rd and 4th bases much more quickly than before. I don't think it will be uncommon to see people floating resources during this phase of the game (especially when it first releases), just because the battles and harassment don't really let up either.
I do think Flash could potentially be more suited to LOTV than HOTS, although for him personally I think all the complicated new unit interactions may prove challenging. Flash doesn't seem like he can quite get a handle on all the crazy tactics in HOTS, and LOTV just amps that up even more. Then again, if he builds more than everybody else, maybe it wont matter. It wasn't "managing huge bases" as much as it was lack of automine and MBS. This made BW significantly harder than SC2 even with macro mechanics. Granted, Terran always had the least punishing macro mechanic with mules.
To add to your post,BW had a different economy curve where you could stay on one base for a long time and your 1st expansion wasnt always easy to take. Whereas now it s almost a given. Even more so in LOTV. Removing macro mechanics is a good decision imho but i still dont like larva autocast...
|
On September 05 2015 17:46 xtorn wrote:Show nested quote +
We’d also like to remind everyone that the direction we’ve taken here has come out of the community summit where top-tier Korean pro players nearly unanimously said that even HotS is way too difficult to master in all aspects. As we discussed the topic with them, reducing the clicks and work needed on macro mechanics was the best solution we came up with in that discussion group. We just wanted to point this out, because there does seem to be some disconnect between the Korean pro players’ opinions vs. some crowds of people making conclusions on what they believe Korean pros would think on these changes.
I find this paragraph very interesting. Core changes were discussed with the top-tier koreans and they approved them. This is the correct approach they should have taken, and I'm glad they did. It kinda gives me a very cozy feeling now that they did the right thing. Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 07:18 Lexender wrote:On September 05 2015 06:38 Charoisaur wrote: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. Or he is telling the truth, after all I'm pretty sure he has talked with more korean progamers than anybody in TL Exactly.
Yes, I find DK's Korean Pro statement to be very cool indeed, and it is good to see a move more towards BW. Micro oriented play outside of all-ins and a few minor cases has always been weak in SC2, and this is the first real push to bring micro back for ALL races which is GREAT. Still, they should just totally remove macro mechanics I think for the best results. There are all of these harassment options early on, but you can't concentrate on them because your income is already HotS midgame income speed and you desperately have to build infrastructure or your harassment turns into an all-in with bank.
Zerg's current macro is the best of the 3, just about like it was in BW (plus creep spread). I say make Terran and Protoss more like Zerg's current macro, and we are golden.
|
I'd say Zerg has the worst macro of the three races not the best. They have to spread creep which is pretty much akin to building depots in terms of chore work (they can blindly make ovies without losing camera focus obv) but that is about all they have to do. They don't have to worry about making units on time nor adding production structures. They just make their expansion hatches, put a queen next to them and call it a day for production. At least in brood wars you had to spam around hatches, select larvae and make your units. Now Zerg macro is basically just selecting all hatches and holding down a key.
|
On September 10 2015 03:07 Tenks wrote:
I'd say Zerg has the worst macro of the three races not the best. They have to spread creep which is pretty much akin to building depots in terms of chore work (they can blindly make ovies without losing camera focus obv) but that is about all they have to do. They don't have to worry about making units on time nor adding production structures. They just make their expansion hatches, put a queen next to them and call it a day for production. At least in brood wars you had to spam around hatches, select larvae and make your units. Now Zerg macro is basically just selecting all hatches and holding down a key.
I think this captures the essence of the high-level consensus I've heard, atm. Scaling up Zerg production capability is probably a little too easy to execute. But really, because of the way larva works, I really don't know how they fix it. I've read many-a-Zerg's ideas here, and I don't think anyone has really nailed it yet (including the lame ideas I've floated).
RE: Creep - I don't consider creep "macro", in the traditional sense of economy, tech, and production. Yes, the creep tumor is a building (technically), and yes it requires clicks to iterate it across the map, but I've always ticked this off in the "Army Control / Positioning" checkbox of gameplay. I just don't see any logical way to categorize Creep as macro: It doesn't cost minerals. It doesn't cost gas. It doesn't cost supply. It doesn't provide tech. It doesn't provide supply. It doesn't provide or enhance economy (hatches can be built without it, and drones don't get speed buff). Instead: it burrows (like a unit), it grants vision, prevents non-Zerg structures from building, and provides a passive speed buff for all Zerg units (almost like a spell / ability). It seems very clear to me that this is a army / tactical task.
I think people like to throw it in with macro, when talking about Zerg, and that's fine, conversationally, but now that we're having a detailed conversation about Zerg macro, I think it's--at worst--intellectually dishonest to include creep--and at best--maybe just a little thoughtless to include it.
|
I think they could just make it similar to broodwar and it would get a little bit harder, no more inject at all, just macro hatcheries with probably a higher larva cap than 3, balance the game accordingly, remove macro mechanics for P and T too obviously
|
My concern with that Fayth is a matter of base clutter. Hatches are pretty damn big and the maps aren't really designed to accomodate that many town hall structures. Maybe they could look into something like a larvae next which is about the size of a spawning pool which spawns macro larvae. Or what about maybe making it so Hatches can have like 8 larvae, Lair can have 12 and Hive 16 or something? That way if you want to spend a resource (in this case amount of room in your base) you can. Since 2 hatches == 1 Hive. But if you are running low or simply don't want to create a maze for your units as defense you can pay some gas to ramp up your production.
|
Also something I think would be cool is if larva were more a resource instead of the current iteration where it is "I have more of these than I can spend" larva harassment could be a real thing. Back in WoL days when Zergs were abysmal at injects I would purposefully attack larva with blue-flame hellions. With the upgrade they could roast then rather quickly and they would not be able to amass enough of an army to counter my timing attack follow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
