|
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18724767129
Hey everyone. This week’s community feedback update includes a slew of updates, design considerations, and shout-outs; we’re going to cover the macro mechanics, Adept, a few Zerg changes, the Cyclone, and the Liberator.
First off, we’d like to give a shout-out to Red Bull eSports for running awesome beta events. Compared to the HotS beta, we’re making a lot of big changes to the game and so we truly value high-level games being played regularly. We feel like the Red Bull events have been extremely helpful in developing Legacy of the Void and we are definitely looking forward to their next event! If you guys haven’t checked these games out yet, please do; being able to see new LotV strategies, cheering for fan favorites who are teaming up as Archons, and the fun format they’ve been iterating on seem to be the biggest cool factors.
Now, on to discussing some further developments in Legacy of the Void!
Game is too easy or too difficult due to macro changes discussions
We’ve heard the discussions on both sides of this topic. Our perspective so far is that we think there’s still plenty of both micro and macro mastery needed in StarCraft II, and freeing up some clicks per race does look to be a good direction to go. While we hear some pro gamers who say things like “macro is so easy that everyone’s macro will be equal now”, we highly doubt they will all be playing at the highest possible skill level due to these changes. Further, we’re definitely not seeing perfect macro from any of the three races right now. Last weekend, we looked at pro-level players competitively playing archon mode and we were able to point out plenty of player mistakes in terms of macro, micro, delayed reaction times, etc. This is with two pros playing as one, so we just imagine how big the skill-gap among professional players would still be especially in 1v1 games.
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.
Keep in mind though that testing on these changes is definitely not final, and we haven’t made hard conclusions yet. We would really like to encourage you guys once again to not be too extreme in both your thought processes and conclusions in this area. During this week’s “The Late Game”, we felt iNcontroL and Rifkin were alluding to the same concept when they were talking about how perception of the Carrier changed from useless to OP. When balancing or designing, it’s so important to avoid getting into a narrow, extreme view of changes in order to be able to evaluate the changes fairly.
Adept
We’ve tried various upgrades for the Adept this week, and realized that we do really want a more straightforward upgrade for this unit. As a core unit, the Adept is already pushing it in terms of ability complexity, and the unit itself (even without any upgrades) is already in a cool, distinct spot. However, we do still agree that a health upgrade on an already tanky unit is probably not the best way to go. We’ll most likely try out a different, simple stat upgrade for this unit’s upgrade slot soon.
Separate from the Adept upgrade, we wanted to discuss one additional topic for the Adept. Currently there’s an issue where Adepts are very difficult to counter with tier 1 or tier 2 units on Protoss. There’s also another potential issue of early game Terran bio not having a solid counter to Adepts since Adepts counter Marines in the early game, and Marauders are only soft counters to the Adept. Here, we’re testing a version of the Adept that is armored instead of light.
Corruptor
We agree with your feedback in that the Corruptor’s new ability overlaps a lot with the new role of the Swarm Host. Both are heavily targeted towards sniping Nexus/CC/Hatcheries. Because the new role of the Swarm Host is looking to be in a cool and unique spot, we are exploring potential ways to change up the Corruptor’s ability to give it a different recycle role. Right now, we’re playing around with a version of the ability where the damage is much lower but the Corruptor can use the ability on units to give a bit more power against the ground once the air threats have been taken care of. The goal here is not to encourage players to tech to Corruptors even when no enemy air units are in play, but rather to have the damage in a place that if you happened to have Corruptors due to enemy air threats out there, they can help against the ground a bit.
Overlord drops moving to Lair
We heard the feedback that this is too big of a nerf as many of you, and the person in the fancy suit, pointed out. We will playtest some different ways to potentially get this change to a better place somewhere in between where it used to be vs. where it is now and see if we can find a better solution.
Roach burrow move speed
We agree that we probably went too far with this change. We’ve evaluated not just the high level streams and tournament games, but also looked into many replays that players sent us. Regardless of whether the burrow-move Roaches won Zerg the game, or if the strategy didn’t quite work out, we agree that the current speed might be too much. We’re trying our best to locate a number that encourages burrow-move usage more so than in HotS, but doesn’t make the strategy quite as powerful as it is in the current state.
Cyclone damage
We agree with the general feedback here that the AA damage can use some help in the late-game. We’d like to improve this perhaps by pointing the ability damage to be more +armored focused so that not all air units are countered easily by the Cyclone in the late game. Still, we would like to also point out that having the initially lower damage (before the +damage research) has been a good thing because it allows the opponents to harass against players teching to early Cyclones; it also gives opponents enough time to react before the upgraded Cyclone comes into play.
Liberator strength
This we believe is mostly a timing thing. Sometimes, Liberators come into play before the counters are ready, and especially with the use of Zero-ground on some maps, they can become very difficult to deal with. We don’t think it’s a good idea to have to build maps around this unit going forward, so we believe a good solution here would be to bring the upgrade back into the game. This would allow us to have a tool to control the timing of when Liberators can start attacking ground units a bit better. We probably don’t need the armory requirement in this case, because the upgrade requirement as well as the tech lab needed for the first Starport might already be enough of a nerf.
Thank you as always for your ongoing participation and feedback in the beta, and please remember the playtest the balance update that just went out this week. We are also very excited to test out some of the big changes that went in and will be playing as much as we can during this long weekend!
|
Overlord drops moving to Lair
We heard the feedback that this is too big of a nerf as many of you, and the person in the fancy suit, pointed out. We will playtest some different ways to potentially get this change to a better place somewhere in between where it used to be vs. where it is now and see if we can find a better solution.
Just wanted to give a big THANK YOU to Catz for this one.
|
Are they moving into balance phase already? These seems to be more of balance fixes than changing stuff like before.
|
|
|
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.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
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.
|
On September 05 2015 03:53 WrathSCII wrote:
Are they moving into balance phase already? These seems to be more of balance fixes than changing stuff like before.
They want to release LOTV between late November and early December this year so they are starting to get low on time so i guess thats why they are pushing balance alot more since that can be 2 months away or 3 months away depending on when they want to release the game which the official date will be told in 8 days.
|
I'm hyped! Seems like good updates all around. 
|
The adept' change is so freaking good to help PvP.
|
The corrupter change would turn it into a better mutalisk
|
On September 05 2015 04:32 Heyjoray wrote:
The corrupter change would turn it into a better mutalisk
Not really. They main strength of mutalisks is their speed.
|
Kill the mothership/core. If you must keep it and overcharge, make it so that overcharge is only possible on "super" pylons. Better yet, give something like shield battery (on a pylon or otherwise).
It is amusing to think about how different LotV singleplayer (the base-building part of it, especially) is going to be from multiplayer. There are differences between elegant solutions and silly bandaids. If the core game were solid, there would be no need for so many exceptions and changes to counter specific units. That and maps could be more dynamic instead of compensating for things that people have complained about since day 1 (forcefield, etc).
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
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.
Dimaga bane drops were quite popular several years ago to join in history telling.
|
On September 05 2015 04:32 Tiaraju9 wrote:
The adept' change is so freaking good to help PvP.
It's good cause the best counter to Adepts may no longer be Adepts, so hopefully we will get less Adept vs. Adept. But I still feel the unit's strength could be toned down a bit.
|
Canada11355 Posts
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.
This was my favourite part.
|
Darn, no more ghost first builds in TvP 
|
On September 05 2015 05:45 JamesT wrote:Darn, no more ghost first builds in TvP
why?
|
I've only played two games now with automated macro mechanics and at least for Terran I liked it. It sped the game back up but also accomplished the goal Blizzard wanted of removing macro tedium and also removing the late game MULE hammer. I hope going forward they continue to tweak the current iteration of LotV especially if they plan on release this year.
|
On September 05 2015 05:51 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 05:45 JamesT wrote:Darn, no more ghost first builds in TvP why?
I'm guessing moving Adept to possibly Armored makes the Ghost less viable
|
On September 05 2015 05:52 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 05:51 ejozl wrote:On September 05 2015 05:45 JamesT wrote:Darn, no more ghost first builds in TvP why? I'm guessing moving Adept to possibly Armored makes the Ghost less viable
Dream: Ghost damage is 10 +10 to bio
|
Terran went from terrible to strong with this patch.
Altough I'd rather have the macro mechanics removed, I like the new mule.
|
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.
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 .
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
On September 05 2015 06:23 Big J wrote:lol Show nested quote +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.
ghost would become suddenly much worse vs zealots and the current adepts though, and I'm guessing drones are bio whereas probes are not? 
|
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.
|
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.
|
I'd be curious to see a new opinon poll about the auto macro mechanics. I wonder if a lot of people would like a choice between auto/manual . I think having the choice is a MUST imo. I dont see any reason why this could not be implemented. 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 fast? Theres no pooling energy to mule hammer, and this way you can choose to strategically place your mules. Seems like the best of both worlds to me.
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?
|
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.
|
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.
Or he is telling the truth, after all I'm pretty sure he has talked with more korean progamers than anybody in TL
|
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.
|
On September 05 2015 07:11 Haighstrom wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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
|
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.
|
On September 05 2015 07:18 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +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
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!'
|
On September 05 2015 06:38 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 06:23 Big J wrote: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. 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).
|
On September 05 2015 07:24 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
On September 05 2015 08:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 06:38 ROOTFayth wrote:On September 05 2015 06:23 Big J wrote: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. 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).
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
|
There are way better ways to fix the adept than to make it armored. Banelings and hellions should do extra to them. They should just reduce some of it's ridiculous health or +light damage, or maybe attack range.
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).
|
Overall this is good but uh... Pylons being over charged, Lurkers, Liberator Damage, Cyclones vs Protoss all seem broken tbh...
|
China6327 Posts
The new macro mechanics are kind of un-intuitive, especially the new Chrono boost.
|
On September 05 2015 05:45 Fecalfeast 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. This was my favourite part.
I felt some serious schadenfreudey "I told ya so" pride after that part.
|
Shuda just nerfed all 3 macro mechanics and make them less effective, not completely change the way they work. That way the best macro players will still outshine those who dont macro as well but not overwhelmingly especially at lower levels. Not going to buy lotv if the final version goes the way it is right now.
|
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.
|
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.
On September 05 2015 07:18 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
I doubt they all thought the same on the issue or that the changes were perfect, still we don't know what they actually think.
|
On September 05 2015 17:52 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 17:46 xtorn wrote:
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. I doubt they all thought the same on the issue or that the changes were perfect, still we don't know what they actually think.
It says "nearly unanimously" so your doubt is already correct - not all thought the same, some opposed or were neutral to the idea, but were in the minority.
I don't think it's necessary to disect and overthink "but exactly how many of the top-tier koreans agreed to this" or which ones precisely; to me this phrasing points out that they discussed the difficulty topic with a significant portion of top-tiers, since it's in their best interest to not ruin the game for those who use it to make a living.
|
Just give the corruptors and ability to kamikaze into the ground after being shoot out from the hatchery carry units to battle like those air drops. That will be the Zerg version of warp in, though expensive as the corruptor dies on impact to the ground. Requires vision.
From BlueZero(?) on Battle.net
I like this idea for the corrupter -> suicide and destroy ground things - spawn some broodlings maybe
|
The community feedback updates are awesome, thanks Blizz!
But pls remove the liberator
|
I'd love to see how the new patch plays out in ZvP and ZvT, but all I get is ZvZ. Not kidding, just had my thirtiest ZvZ in a row. I started to leave all of them but I still get exclusively ZvZ.
|
On September 05 2015 19:27 KeksX wrote:
I'd love to see how the new patch plays out in ZvP and ZvT, but all I get is ZvZ. Not kidding, just had my thirtiest ZvZ in a row. I started to leave all of them but I still get exclusively ZvZ.
Zerg confirmed too much fun for the game without injects.
|
On September 05 2015 19:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 19:27 KeksX wrote:
I'd love to see how the new patch plays out in ZvP and ZvT, but all I get is ZvZ. Not kidding, just had my thirtiest ZvZ in a row. I started to leave all of them but I still get exclusively ZvZ. Zerg confirmed too much fun for the game without injects.
Wouldn't be too bad if they weren't all turtling... Thats the main reason I leave, a ZvZ atm is a sure way to face someone spamming queens and lurkers to tech to ultras. Thats fun once in a while but not 30 times in a row.
|
On September 05 2015 11:28 johnbongham wrote:
Shuda just nerfed all 3 macro mechanics and make them less effective, not completely change the way they work. That way the best macro players will still outshine those who dont macro as well but not overwhelmingly especially at lower levels. Not going to buy lotv if the final version goes the way it is right now.
Yea all those poor lower league players who lose games because they didn't Chrono Boost enough!
|
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.
none of`em. It is delivered PERFECTLY.
|
On September 05 2015 20:34 Thouhastmail wrote:Show nested quote +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. none of`em. Delivered PERFECTLY.
|
On September 05 2015 19:55 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 11:28 johnbongham wrote:
Shuda just nerfed all 3 macro mechanics and make them less effective, not completely change the way they work. That way the best macro players will still outshine those who dont macro as well but not overwhelmingly especially at lower levels. Not going to buy lotv if the final version goes the way it is right now. Yea all those poor lower league players who lose games because they didn't Chrono Boost enough!
taking in mind that Blizzard already made 12 workers instead of 6, auto rally at the game start, and now auto macro mechanics, everything to make silver scrubs happier even tho it won't help them to play better.
why didn't they made everything automatic? auto worker/building/unit creation and so on?
this game should be complex and hard in all possible aspects, not easier than previos addons, either the same or even harder.
|
On September 05 2015 19:47 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 19:33 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 19:27 KeksX wrote:
I'd love to see how the new patch plays out in ZvP and ZvT, but all I get is ZvZ. Not kidding, just had my thirtiest ZvZ in a row. I started to leave all of them but I still get exclusively ZvZ. Zerg confirmed too much fun for the game without injects. Wouldn't be too bad if they weren't all turtling... Thats the main reason I leave, a ZvZ atm is a sure way to face someone spamming queens and lurkers to tech to ultras. Thats fun once in a while but not 30 times in a row.
play some games against me :D i almost always go muta/ling/queen with heavy harassment into about 10 lurkers to buy time for a brood lord switch (if my opponent is going heavy ground), and let me tell you my lategame zvzs are really really fucking fun.
|
Please. We don't care about that.
=> put back the old macro mechs
=> cut the ridiculous pylon overcharge : how did that made it past internal testing???
|
About that liberator upgrade for anti-ground mode:
Techlab requirement on a reactorable unit for terran has always been a semi-viable thing.
It works for marines with stim and shields in bio builds that build more than one rax anyways.
It works for hellions in mech-builds because you get more than one factory anyways.
In TvZ there is this old, semi-viable cheese build with 2factories and blue flame that can transition into mech or bio.
And widow mines in TvZ will eventually be upgraded from a second or third factory in bio/mine/thor builds.
But the process of getting such an upgrade is always a very commited, or very late play. So I personally feel like this isn't a good solution, I think it will push the liberator far back or maybe even completely out of the metagame. This is of course a bit of theorycrafting and not something tested, but I think there could be nicer solutions.
For example, the AG mode could unlock with a fusion core instead of the armory. This would mean that you don't unlock hellbat transformation and liberator AG at the same time, so you don't have the combined rush power. You still have the old hellbat rush, and possibly a new liberator rush. But not the combination of both that is very hard to prepare for.
And in a non-rush game, building a 150/150 fusion core is much easier than having a second techlabed starport upgrading for an upgrade that will cost like 150/150 on top of that. And the fusion core also unlocks the underused banshee speed and battlecruiser techs, giving terran more options in the process than the second starport to upgrade does.
|
On September 05 2015 17:07 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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
|
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.
|
hatcheries are just a bit bigger than gateways/stargate/barracks etc. realistically you wouldn't need to make that many of them, it could be capped at something like 5 or 6 larvas and you'd probably be fine with just 1 extra hatch per expansion, or maybe like 7 hatch on 3 base... pretty hard to tell since we're just theory crafting, I think it would be worth giving this a shot in the current beta
|
Well, I just played my first two games of LotV and it feels like Protoss got a huge buff between the adepts and the autochrono. I've been struggling with Terrans in HotS and I just crushed two (I know I know, small sample size). Autochrono has made my timings a lot more crisp in the first 3 minutes or so. The autochrono helped me get my warpgate and blink out fast.
I've been reading about how devastating adept harass can be so that was my strategy in these games. I was able to cut through the Terran mineral lines like a hot knife through butter. Then I followed up with a quick push up the ramp about a minute or two later and it was over in both games.
Like I said, this is a small sample size. But here are some of my general feeling.
1) I don't see a purpose for the zealot in early game. Maybe that was intentional when blizzard made the adept, idk.
2) Autochrono is powerful. My probes maxed quickly and that allowed me to pump out upgrades and robo units without much thought. I just need remember which nexus is autocasting on what building (Not difficult in my opinion).
3) If you're terran and you lose a lot of scv's to a mineral harass, you lose the game. Protoss can hit with with a warp prism full of adepts really quickly. Defensive play around the mineral line is more important than ever.
4) The games seems to progress incredibly fast in the beginning because all the probes you start with.
5) I think the MULE autocast is pointless because it takes all decision out of it, and it makes it impossible for a terran to recover from a bad scv harass. I remember a fantastic game I watched where PartinG beautifully harassed a terran mineral line with blink stalkers, forcing the terran player to use all his OC energy on mules, and then PartinG ended the game with DT's because his opponent had no scans. That's great tactics and high level play right there. It's a small part of the game but I think it is a large part of what makes SC2 great on the highest level.
One last thing. I think my opponents responded very poorly to my mineral harass. They did not pull their scv's quickly. They had no units or static defense that could attack the adepts quickly. They just seemed woefully unprepared. Maybe it was their first foray into LotV and they hadn't read about it as much as I have. idk.
|
Yeah I'm done till Adepts get nerfed. TvP is essentially unplayable. They are too tanky and deal too much damage early on to Terran. Terran is either flat out dead, or 90% crippled after any halfway decent warp prism + adept drop.
I dont really understand why they have to be so tanky in the first place either, wasn't that the zealot's job? What are zealots good for nowadays when for 25 gas you essentially get a ranged zealot that is much more tanky?
|
Ugh. I'd like them to do something about nerfed zerg early/mid game. Larva production is so low compared to hots.
|
Game is too easy or too difficult due to macro changes discussions
We’ve heard the discussions on both sides of this topic. Our perspective so far is that we think there’s still plenty of both micro and macro mastery needed in StarCraft II, and freeing up some clicks per race does look to be a good direction to go. While we hear some pro gamers who say things like “macro is so easy that everyone’s macro will be equal now”, we highly doubt they will all be playing at the highest possible skill level due to these changes. Further, we’re definitely not seeing perfect macro from any of the three races right now. Last weekend, we looked at pro-level players competitively playing archon mode and we were able to point out plenty of player mistakes in terms of macro, micro, delayed reaction times, etc. This is with two pros playing as one, so we just imagine how big the skill-gap among professional players would still be especially in 1v1 games.
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. Good job Blizzard on including the motivations behind reconsidering macro mechanics as-it-stood. Korean pros calling for it is certainly grounds to investigate a change. I still think they should've reconsidered, along the lines of the famous retort on teamliquid, but at least they provided us this.
Adept
We’ve tried various upgrades for the Adept this week, and realized that we do really want a more straightforward upgrade for this unit. As a core unit, the Adept is already pushing it in terms of ability complexity, and the unit itself (even without any upgrades) is already in a cool, distinct spot. However, we do still agree that a health upgrade on an already tanky unit is probably not the best way to go. We’ll most likely try out a different, simple stat upgrade for this unit’s upgrade slot soon.
Separate from the Adept upgrade, we wanted to discuss one additional topic for the Adept. Currently there’s an issue where Adepts are very difficult to counter with tier 1 or tier 2 units on Protoss. There’s also another potential issue of early game Terran bio not having a solid counter to Adepts since Adepts counter Marines in the early game, and Marauders are only soft counters to the Adept. Here, we’re testing a version of the Adept that is armored instead of light. Anything to make my TvP early game focus around ensuring I don't immediately die to adepts while I'm still getting stim out and the natural is hard-ish to defend.
Cyclone damage
We agree with the general feedback here that the AA damage can use some help in the late-game. We’d like to improve this perhaps by pointing the ability damage to be more +armored focused so that not all air units are countered easily by the Cyclone in the late game. Still, we would like to also point out that having the initially lower damage (before the +damage research) has been a good thing because it allows the opponents to harass against players teching to early Cyclones; it also gives opponents enough time to react before the upgraded Cyclone comes into play.
Solid discussed change. Give it a role late-game. Terran is generally lacking in interesting lategame units to make a BIO or MECH army more robust against other race's classical lategame comp challenges.
Liberator strength
This we believe is mostly a timing thing. Sometimes, Liberators come into play before the counters are ready, and especially with the use of Zero-ground on some maps, they can become very difficult to deal with. We don’t think it’s a good idea to have to build maps around this unit going forward, so we believe a good solution here would be to bring the upgrade back into the game. This would allow us to have a tool to control the timing of when Liberators can start attacking ground units a bit better. We probably don’t need the armory requirement in this case, because the upgrade requirement as well as the tech lab needed for the first Starport might already be enough of a nerf.
Hallelujah, looks like they won't nerf this into the ground while making it easier to defend its economic harass and early push potential.
|
PartinG beautifully harassed a terran mineral line with blink stalkers, forcing the terran player to use all his OC energy on mules, and then PartinG ended the game with DT's because his opponent had no scans. That's great tactics and high level play right there
Really? Sound like a basic strategy from 2011! High level strategies are decisions that are much more difficult to figure out.
|
On September 10 2015 18:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + PartinG beautifully harassed a terran mineral line with blink stalkers, forcing the terran player to use all his OC energy on mules, and then PartinG ended the game with DT's because his opponent had no scans. That's great tactics and high level play right there Really? Sound like a basic strategy from 2011! High level strategies are decisions that are much more difficult to figure out.
Well I'll be the first to admit that I'm a newb (<100 games on HotS), but I thought how well he employed that tactic was great. My bigger point was that the MULE requires no choice or thought at all now. It's just there to prop up the terran and make them playable. At least with autochrono you can change what building it's being cast on.
|
On September 10 2015 16:29 Rowrin wrote:
Yeah I'm done till Adepts get nerfed. TvP is essentially unplayable. They are too tanky and deal too much damage early on to Terran. Terran is either flat out dead, or 90% crippled after any halfway decent warp prism + adept drop.
I dont really understand why they have to be so tanky in the first place either, wasn't that the zealot's job? What are zealots good for nowadays when for 25 gas you essentially get a ranged zealot that is much more tanky?
While I entirely agree that adepts are broken to the point of game ending vs T (really I don't see too much dmg done at all), I feel simply reducing their "vs light" dmg to 22 would do wonders. Would cause them to 3-hit marines and SCVs, greatly reducing their strength early game specifically and not really affecting PvP or PvZ. Also, they wouldn't be able to 2 hit stimmed, combat shield marines if a medivac hadn't healed them yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
