|
On October 02 2015 08:21 CptMarvel wrote:
Am I the only one here who, regardless of the balance tweaks it probably needs, is excruciated by the Liberator's looks? I don't think they've ever created a unit so ugly and underwhelming in the way it attacks (air to air, air to ground is actually ok). It pisses me off, a lot.
The sideways missile launches are supposed to evoke the Valkyrie, but just look goofy and implausible in SC2 engine. Should just shoot straight forwards or something. The sideways launch followed by the spin makes no sense.
|
On October 02 2015 08:21 CptMarvel wrote:
Am I the only one here who, regardless of the balance tweaks it probably needs, is excruciated by the Liberator's looks? I don't think they've ever created a unit so ugly and underwhelming in the way it attacks (air to air, air to ground is actually ok). It pisses me off, a lot.
Na, you are not the only one. I also think the model size doesn't represent the unit very well. It looks too big for its hitpoints in particular.
|
Nerfing macro mechanics sounds great. I'm pretty happy with how this has been turning out.
|
I think they have to review some units costs... for example, an adept costs same as maruader but is like 3x stronger... liberator costs less than a voidray but it's better maybe... and what about ht that costs 1/3 mineral than infestor but being 10x worth?
|
On October 02 2015 06:28 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 06:20 jpg06051992 wrote:On October 02 2015 06:18 DinoMight wrote:
Why all this attention on macro mechanics?
How about we nerf the Adept so everyone can realize how bad Protoss actually is in LotV? I don't really know how you back this up? Protoss doesn't seem OP in it's entirety right now but they definitely feel strong Adept aside, with Warp Prism tunneling into your base instantly to faster Carriers to the Adept/Templar Protoss literally doesn't seem weak/without options at any point in the game. I do kind of wish Corrosive Bile didn't affect buildings really so FFE could be a viable macro opening but that's besides the point. No i mean, Protoss is very weak, and all the units are gimmicky and require too much micro. Adepts doing insane econ damage ALLOWS Protoss to transition to the late game and build sky armies. But without the early game God mode unit, it all falls apart. Separately, blizzard is forcing all Protoss players to play one style... micro style. You can extract so much MORE utility out of the units by microing them that it's ALWAYS a better use of APM to micro your units rather than build more or expand etc. Like I said in my blog there will be no LotV Protoss Bombers. Only Protoss Marine Kings.
I hope u are kidding... what about carriers, disruptor, warp prism? And ofc old hots op units like hts, blink stalker, immortals etc... I really cant see this HIGH COST units rotfl, they all are so cheap
|
On October 02 2015 08:21 CptMarvel wrote:
Am I the only one here who, regardless of the balance tweaks it probably needs, is excruciated by the Liberator's looks? I don't think they've ever created a unit so ugly and underwhelming in the way it attacks (air to air, air to ground is actually ok). It pisses me off, a lot.
The name is lame too. But to be fair, the Warhound looked even more out of place.
What pisses me of the most though is that it's an air unit. The starport has the most units now, 6 vs 4 for the barracks and 5 for the factory.
|
On October 02 2015 02:10 SC2Angora wrote:
Also when the Op Parasitic bomb and the 8 ultra armor will be nerf ?
I doubt they will change the parasitic bomb since zerg has no good response for air, and it is a bandaid in the first place for the real issue.
|
good to see they're nerfing the macro mechanic effectiveness, that is probably the best possible decision they can make at this point. it keeps the "high apm/skill" requirements but reduces the damage done by not keeping up with them. plus it slows down the game, which is always a good change.
also i'm glad that they're thinking of the adept as more of a damage focused unit, replacing the zealot as a tank was a a retarded idea.
|
I prefer the current strength of the mechanics. The change is going to nerf all of my pool before hatch builds. I'll end up hatch 1st every game now, which is boring. I don't see the big need to nerf them. It's needlessly changing the game. It makes the opening more boring. I don't see a huge improvement or problem to begin with. Just keep the current mechanics at this point.
|
On October 02 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:
I think they have to review some units costs... for example, an adept costs same as maruader but is like 3x stronger... liberator costs less than a voidray but it's better maybe... and what about ht that costs 1/3 mineral than infestor but being 10x worth?
The races are asymmetrical.
|
people whining and moaning that the game will suck balls when it is released should remember the state of Day 1 multiplayer when SC1, Brood War, Reign of Chaos, and Frozen Throne were released. if it takes 18 months to fully flesh out LotV after release it'll be on par with all their other RTS releases.
Furthermore, what was CoH1, RA2, and Kane's Wrath multiplayer like on release day? Every multiplayer RTS ever made always needed a long trail of balance patches.
nice consistency between Sigaty's interview at Blizzcon and David Kim's community feedback update
Specifically, this is nice to see:
"We will not be exploring a macro mechanics removal for the remainder of the beta. This doesn’t mean however that we will never go back to exploring this topic again. We’re currently discussing plans about when and how to explore big changes (such as this one) after Legacy of the Void ships. We’ll try to settle on some discussion points before Blizzcon so that we can talk to you all about this at panels, interviews, or discussions. For now however, we’d like to focus on balancing the game. "
Go DK Go!
Great work Mr. Kim.
|
I'm kind of on the fence about whether macro mechanics need to be toned down or not. On one hand yes, it might make the pace of the game less breakneck, but it also provides potential for recovery when you lose workers to harass, which is another issue the community is vocal about (harass being too strong). On the other hand, if you lose a bunch of workers, you've probably lost the game already. There's likely a nice balance between the two, but it would take more testing in beta to find it, and they're short on time. Drastic changes like removing macro mechanics while not addressing unit balance would take a lot of time to fix, since it affects so many parts of the game (effectiveness of harassment for example, but that's really the least of it). I wish they made more time for it, if that's the direction they want to go.
|
On October 02 2015 07:37 NonY wrote:
I like it. I think LotV right now is fun and has the potential to stay interesting for quite a while. They're out of time so we're stuck with what we're stuck with anyway, but I think a lot of things have come together pretty well so far. It'd be wasteful to throw out this iteration. And the way they're talking about planning another round of big changes post-launch could potentially be the equivalent of a new expansion for multiplayer players. They won't add new units I'm sure, but they could redesign unused ones and they could make econ/macro/micro changes that reset all build orders again and change the dynamics of the game again. Right now I think the people who are unsatisfied are either pessimists who'd be unsatisfied with anything or they're in a minority that didn't see their preferences met, which is pretty much unavoidable (can't please everyone).
Definitely agree, LoTV has created really fun interactions and overall is actually amazing, especially the micro potential of progames, we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet!
PvZ Roach/Ravager/Lurker vs Robo is one of the funnest things added to the game. PvP Robo wars is also insanely fun. PvT, as soon as the adept change goes through will probably not as bad as made out to be, maybe even T favored.
|
Will need to do something about Bio being so mineral costly and Protoss unit production being adjusted to HotS Chrono. Maybe Barracks get a mineral discount and certain Protoss units get build time reductions depending on how thing unfold.
|
On October 02 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:
I think they have to review some units costs... for example, an adept costs same as maruader but is like 3x stronger... liberator costs less than a voidray but it's better maybe... and what about ht that costs 1/3 mineral than infestor but being 10x worth?
1 adept kills 3 marauders? O_O
|
On October 02 2015 10:17 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:
I think they have to review some units costs... for example, an adept costs same as maruader but is like 3x stronger... liberator costs less than a voidray but it's better maybe... and what about ht that costs 1/3 mineral than infestor but being 10x worth?
1 adept kills 3 marauders? O_O
I think he means kills "workers" or light units 3 times faster. Although the same could be said about the marauder vs armored units when compared to adept vs armored units.
|
Ok, well there is nothing wrong with the changes they are making really..
* Adepts need to be nerfed somehow, TvA (read "Terran vs Adepts") is really stupid
* Swarm Hosts could just be removed, I don't see a point for them now that the Lurker exists (Swarm Host was originally the "seige" unit, but the Lurker and Ravager have basically filled those roles
* Ghost Snipe - Nobody uses this b/c who has time to individually target snipe every ghost in a way that it won't get interrupted during a giant battle when you're trying to micro all your other units?
* Don't really care about macro mechanics I'd prefer they just leave them as they are in HOTS an focus on balancing the units properly, but I accept that if they would have removed them, it would have put the game back ever further in terms of balance... So many things would have had to been re-tweaked it never would have worked in the time period they have (duh).. I'm really tired of reading about macro mechanics anyways, so I'm glad they are putting it to rest
|
[B]On October 02 2015 01:54 WrathSCII wrote:
At this point, we also want to let you know that it’s not of much help to give us feedback on why macro mechanics have to be removed at this point. We clearly know that there are pros and cons (that we’ve explored in great detail) to both methods. We feel that after exploring many different angles, the best is what we have now: easier for non-pros, but just as difficult for pros. We will not be exploring a macro mechanics removal for the remainder of the beta. This doesn’t mean however that we will never go back to exploring this topic again. We’re currently discussing plans about when and how to explore big changes (such as this one) after Legacy of the Void ships. We’ll try to settle on some discussion points before Blizzcon so that we can talk to you all about this at panels, interviews, or discussions. For now however, we’d like to focus on balancing the game.
Does this mean there is hope?
|
Post-release changes sound good.
Also glad to hear they are going to try to nerf MM.
Adept I'm not quite sure but we'll see after the patch come out.
Edit: Also I don't like Liberator's attack animation as well 
It would looks better if she does not only launch 2 missiles... But changing this means we need to tweak its damage.
Maybe reduce its model size would be good too.
|
Brazil419 Posts
Can't belive blizzard really thinks that ZvT and carriers are fine right now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
