|
On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote:
Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things,
Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts.
I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS.
I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line).
Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different.
BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then.
BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge.
A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT.
And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
|
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
|
On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money. Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc.. There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic.
So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
|
On September 12 2015 15:54 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 15:01 a_flayer wrote:On September 12 2015 14:36 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 13:43 ZenithM wrote:On September 12 2015 11:56 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 11:53 Lexender wrote:On September 12 2015 11:51 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote:
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back. It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance. I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that you'd have to change the very fundamentals of each unit from the ling up. It's not just changing numbers, its changing all unit interactions. Can you give the basis of why you think that or is "complete redesign" just the safer thing to say in this case? I don't really see why it would break the game so much that you couldn't fix it with some number changes. Starting off with the basics: Mules give the bonus income needed to make large amounts of bio early on which is why bio has been viable vs both Zerg and Protoss. Remove that and you dont get the mineral boost you need to create the same amount of marines needed to get the same type of uni interactions of previous games. So if you still want Bio to be viable you'd need to redesign how the unit interactions work, the range, hp cost, how many marines are needed to take out a ling/zealot/stalker/adept, etc. Same thing with inject. Instead of being constrained by minerals however, it is constrained by larvae. Lings/Bling play vs Terran or Protoss is based on flooding the field with weaker more mobile units that can overwhelm Terran. Excuse me for selectively quoting, but it sounds like they cancel each other out pretty well ^^ You can't make as many marines, and you can't make as many lings/banelings. Balance! There are three races/six matchups to think about and I talk about this problem in the exact same post Its also not about balance, its about design. Why would you go for marines when your other units are most cost effective, why go for lings if your other units are cost effective. If you arent thinking holistically about the entire problem and how one change effects the entire game, then whats the point?
The point I was kind of jokingly trying to make is that - despite the delicate balance - these things will probably largely sort themselves out as players adjust their play to match their (expected) income. Terrans will build more gas-heavy units (we saw this happening in the short time they were without mules), Zergs will make macro hatcheries to compensate for lack of larva.
And I should add that personally I am not for a complete removal of macro mechanics, but rather a ~50% reduction in effectiveness. This would hopefully mean that it is slightly more forgiving to spend some more time microing your units and that missing some macro beats while you are trying to damage your enemy's economy is not going to cost you the game if you can't do sufficient damage.
Not that the game won't require some rebalancing as the result of these changes, but the rebalance requirement will become evident after a month or two of gameplay and are not impossibly difficult to overcome. Still, a medivac full of marines will be capable of killing an equal amount of drones as it does today. And while the drop itself will be more valuable due to the fewer resources available to the Terran, the damage done to the economy can also be more significant as the Zerg will have to devote more of his fewer larva to rebuilding his drones.
|
The issues with Mules and SCV pulls could be changed by turning it into a stationary unit/building.
- Dropdown ability, but can only be dropped on mineral patches.
- When dropped on a patch it will start mining, SCV's will need to pick up what it has mined. The pick-up cycle should be shorter than the normal SCV mining cycle.
- Limited mineral cargo supply
- Hovering but immobile. Unit can be lifted and dropped to other locations by Medivacs
- Non-stackable
- Limited life duration, patches that weren't picked up by SCV's will drop on the ground.
|
On September 12 2015 19:15 LDaVinci wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money. Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc.. There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc.. Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
Oooh the burn - you should play Ember Spirit in DotA 
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
I think that Blizzard, upon launch, should make the game F2P for a couple of weeks for multiplayer only. Then people who are concerned that they won't like it and will have wasted their money can try it without risk.
P.S. Whilst I am pissed at Blizz over much of this - best of luck finding a better RTS.
|
On September 12 2015 19:15 LDaVinci wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money. Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc.. There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc.. Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
I can't stand MOBAs. One of the things I hate about LOTV is them making it more like MOBAs.
|
On September 12 2015 15:54 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 15:01 a_flayer wrote:On September 12 2015 14:36 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 13:43 ZenithM wrote:On September 12 2015 11:56 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 11:53 Lexender wrote:On September 12 2015 11:51 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote:
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back. It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance. I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that you'd have to change the very fundamentals of each unit from the ling up. It's not just changing numbers, its changing all unit interactions. Can you give the basis of why you think that or is "complete redesign" just the safer thing to say in this case? I don't really see why it would break the game so much that you couldn't fix it with some number changes. Starting off with the basics: Mules give the bonus income needed to make large amounts of bio early on which is why bio has been viable vs both Zerg and Protoss. Remove that and you dont get the mineral boost you need to create the same amount of marines needed to get the same type of uni interactions of previous games. So if you still want Bio to be viable you'd need to redesign how the unit interactions work, the range, hp cost, how many marines are needed to take out a ling/zealot/stalker/adept, etc. Same thing with inject. Instead of being constrained by minerals however, it is constrained by larvae. Lings/Bling play vs Terran or Protoss is based on flooding the field with weaker more mobile units that can overwhelm Terran. Excuse me for selectively quoting, but it sounds like they cancel each other out pretty well ^^ You can't make as many marines, and you can't make as many lings/banelings. Balance! There are three races/six matchups to think about and I talk about this problem in the exact same post Its also not about balance, its about design. Why would you go for marines when your other units are most cost effective, why go for lings if your other units are cost effective. If you arent thinking holistically about the entire problem and how one change effects the entire game, then whats the point?
Things can be rendered more or less cost effective with number tuning. I think you just make it sound more complicated in essence than it really is. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't require a huge amount of work, even if there is "just" number balancing taking place, of course.
I would also argue that nobody absolutely wants LotV to play exactly like HotS in term of unit interactions. It's fine if some unit interactions are lost/created in the process.
|
Ah well, lots of other games to play, hugely disappointed. These nobrain mechanics are horrible
|
On September 12 2015 11:56 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 11:53 Lexender wrote:On September 12 2015 11:51 stuchiu wrote:On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote:
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back. It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance. I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that you'd have to change the very fundamentals of each unit from the ling up. It's not just changing numbers, its changing all unit interactions.
All you do is lower the cost of production by a percentage across the board and let a new meta emerge.
|
Starcraft is about attention, as long as there's always things to do=more than what a human being is capable of, we're good.
Then secondly, you want these attention things to have as much decision making as possible, so the better strategist can come out on top.
Then I think simplicity is what's most important.
Macro Boosters: if there's not enough to do, there should be Macro Boosters, they should involve decision making. If there's already enough to do, we should go for simplicity and simply remove them.
There are many other factors, like flow of the game and the feel of uniqueness they bring to each race.
|
On September 12 2015 17:38 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote:
Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things, Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts. I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS. I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line). Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different. BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then. BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge. A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT. And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
Bio in broodwar crushes protoss as well ( early on  ). Reaver + Storm just hurt more in broodwar, because storm is stronger in broodwar due to stacking and players can dodge them easily in sc2 with better pathing.
The reason I pointed out all those units in sc2 is because many bio players don't want or don't think they should have to build them to deal with whatever they are fighting. its been pure MMMM all game every game for the longest time. I just wanted to point out that with the removal of the mechanics, terran still has all the tools they would need to defend whatever the other races are building.
I know that each change will have an affect on an unintended area, you just have to sit down a think about it. This is why many of blizzards changes focus on shit like warp gate research increased duration to 160 seconds or whatever. They choose this way because it should have less impact on all matchups compared to say buffing the stalkers damage.
The main reason that I was in favor of the removal of the macro mechanics, is for the simple fact that I think it would make the game easier to balance. Only a few units right now could be tweaked because they are stupidly strong, but it's hard when Blizzard still does not know what to do with the macro mechanics, and they keep changing it. You have to wait for this mess to die down and for them to stop making changes to it, to really get into balancing the units.
|
This is just horrible and I am really disappointed. I was so happy when they started the larva mechanics removal. And now this...with such a stupid argument.
To be honest, it's all about the larva inject mechanism and probably chronoboost. MULE is totally different as it doesn't require much skill and is way more forgiving than the others.
I was so happy that the players had much more time executing and harrassing and didn't need to always stop fighting (retreating their armies/or shortly leaving them uncontrolled) in order to re-inject e.g.
|
In just a few hours, the release date of LotV will be announced.
Blizzard is rushing out LotV by year's end, without the balls to remove macro mechanics and implement the rebalancing that it requires, while the same old distortionary, inaccurate ranking system still remains.
SHAME.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 12 2015 17:38 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote:
Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things, Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts. I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS. I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line). Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different. BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then. BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge. A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT. And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
I didn't play much BW myself but from what you said I am kinda happy how starcraft 2 zerg fit better to the lore. 
|
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote:
RIP no macro mechanics... Removing them was the best thing that ever happened to sc2, and all we needed was some rebalancing... But blizzard too lazy, prob being pushed to release the game too early, and reverting everything back to HotS status.
So disappointed
Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
The single best thing in fact!
I guess blizzard wants to lower polularity of SC2 by bringing back SCV pull all-in gameplay and all the other negative effects that macro boosters have on the game such as accelerating small advantages to make them huge and impossible to come back from.
Watched proleague finals earlier today and there was barely a single interesting game but just infinite boredom. I don't even care who wins these SCV pull games as it doesn't tell much about the class and level of players.
DK, how do you think your game can get any better and more appealing if you don't change anything of significance? I know for a fact that alot of players didn't even switch from SC:BW to SC2 back in the days for exactly the reason of it being only massing units, reaching 200/200 way too quickly and the metagame being so narrow that anything other than standard macro play and pure all-ining is getting punished heavily sooner or later. Now you got the chance to get things right and you should take it. Try a version without mules, queens giving 1 larva per inject (automated) and with low or no chronoboost and see what else is required to balance it out.
Larva stack is complete bullshit imo. Zergs should learn to manage larva well and not have infinite larva with a few queens in place. We don't need games that rush to 200/200 within 7 minutes but more lower number of unit interactions that are carefully microed. With macro boosters this is hardly possible. It is too easy to abuse your own timings once you get them. The pressure of macro is a too high burden for the metagames of SC2 to allow versatility, strategical creativity and cleverness. Small advantages in macro get accelerated with the boosters to a point where it is hard or impossible to come back for the opponent. This makes ppl quit the game: Repetitive non strategical macro boosting in every game without much strategical choice and barely ways to come back out of a disadvantage against the accelerated & boosted macro of your opponent.
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
This is for sure the only viable option if things stay as they are. I can't see myself playing or watching any more SC2 games that are only about boosting macro and once one player gets into a situation of 2 mules vs. 3 mules or 3 mules vs. 4 mules he can be put on a timer to lose by default for not being able to keep up with the accelerated boosted macro of his opponent. It makes ppl only play the safest possible way, not risking or committing anything and if so then going full all-in only. It is like playing poker on all-in/fold mode. Low skill ceiling. Don't listen to misguided pros/wannabe pros that believe the macro mechanics enlarge the skill ceiling of the game. Overall the opposite is true..
|
On September 13 2015 22:29 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote:
Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money. This is for sure the only viable option if things stay as they are. I can't see myself playing or watching any more SC2 games that are only about boosting macro and once one player gets into a situation of 2 mules vs. 3 mules or 3 mules vs. 4 mules he can be put on a timer to lose by default for not being able to keep up with the accelerated boosted macro of his opponent. It makes ppl only play the safest possible way, not risking or committing anything and if so then going full all-in only. It is like playing poker on all-in/fold mode. Low skill ceiling. Don't listen to misguided pros/wannabe pros that believe the macro mechanics enlarge the skill ceiling of the game. Overall the opposite is true..
I'm so glad I'm reading this forum.
Staying up to date on the "video game buying meta" is so important when I'm deciding what to spend my money on. I try lots of buying strats, and sometimes it's hard to tell what works.
I was curious about "buying LOTV strategy," and it has been working well for me.
Now that I'm reading that "Not buying it," is the "only viable option," I'm wondering why "buying it" has been working so well for me :/
Maybe I've been putting it against many other bad games, so it's an easy win. Clearly though, doing things outside of the meta is just not viable. I need to be in the meta and only do the "viable" things, but sometimes the "not viable" works really well. But I must stay viable, but then the not viable can be so fun, but it isn't viable. I wish LOTV was a viable :/ but I think maybe the not viable is actually viable... Do you understand?
|
Well there are no real alternatives therefore we all probably gonna buy it. But that doesn't give any information about how long ppl are going to stay and have fun with the game.
If you don't understand what I say about the meta its your problem not mine. Just try to remember how many times on streams you hear that someone is put on a timer for this or that reason. If small disadvantages already put you on a timer due to boosted macro that makes little advantages weigh higher than they should the game gets boring to me. You are free to think what you like tho, I am stating my opinion.
|
Archons could use a buff/change. I would give it a passive that creates a storm when it dies but double aoe and duration. Would make it alot more interesting and useful than what it is now. For example when a Protoss army is retreating, leave a Archon at a ramp to zone out the opponent.
|
On September 14 2015 07:47 Klowney wrote:
Archons could use a buff/change. I would give it a passive that creates a storm when it dies but double aoe and duration. Would make it alot more interesting and useful than what it is now. For example when a Protoss army is retreating, leave a Archon at a ramp to zone out the opponent.
This isn't MOBA or Diablo 2 though. You can already do that with forcefields but I don't know how viable they're in LotV after the last few months I've not played it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
