|
This is what we’re seeing with the new upgrade in comparison with the Zealot:
Adepts are much better at worker line harassment vs. Zealots are much better at structure harassment.
Defensive cases are more interesting with Zealots warping in right on top of enemy units vs. Adepts needing to warp in with positioning in mind vs. melee units.
In larger combat, Adepts will serve mostly as a source of damage vs. Zealots serving as meat-shields (as they already do).
We would see a great reduction in Adepts just teleporting on top of enemy armies, and so good positioning of the Shade ability will be more critical in engagements
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units...And why would I warp in zealots on top of units when I am Pretty sure adepts have more health than zealots (correct me if im wrong). I can not see any reasoning to use zealots instead of adepts in this current state
|
On October 02 2015 11:44 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
This is what we’re seeing with the new upgrade in comparison with the Zealot:
Adepts are much better at worker line harassment vs. Zealots are much better at structure harassment.
Defensive cases are more interesting with Zealots warping in right on top of enemy units vs. Adepts needing to warp in with positioning in mind vs. melee units.
In larger combat, Adepts will serve mostly as a source of damage vs. Zealots serving as meat-shields (as they already do).
We would see a great reduction in Adepts just teleporting on top of enemy armies, and so good positioning of the Shade ability will be more critical in engagements
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units...And why would I warp in zealots on top of units when I am Pretty sure adepts have more health than zealots (correct me if im wrong). I can not see any reasoning to use zealots instead of adepts in this current state
Er... Because they are going to nerf adept's health?
Also zealots are used all the time to snipe building in PvZ...
|
On October 02 2015 11:55 Yiome wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 11:44 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
This is what we’re seeing with the new upgrade in comparison with the Zealot:
Adepts are much better at worker line harassment vs. Zealots are much better at structure harassment.
Defensive cases are more interesting with Zealots warping in right on top of enemy units vs. Adepts needing to warp in with positioning in mind vs. melee units.
In larger combat, Adepts will serve mostly as a source of damage vs. Zealots serving as meat-shields (as they already do).
We would see a great reduction in Adepts just teleporting on top of enemy armies, and so good positioning of the Shade ability will be more critical in engagements
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units...And why would I warp in zealots on top of units when I am Pretty sure adepts have more health than zealots (correct me if im wrong). I can not see any reasoning to use zealots instead of adepts in this current state Er... Because they are going to nerf adept's health? Also zealots are used all the time to snipe building in PvZ...
They would have to nerf its heath substantially to make it less than a zealots, correct? You think they would do that
|
On October 02 2015 11:44 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
This is what we’re seeing with the new upgrade in comparison with the Zealot:
Adepts are much better at worker line harassment vs. Zealots are much better at structure harassment.
Defensive cases are more interesting with Zealots warping in right on top of enemy units vs. Adepts needing to warp in with positioning in mind vs. melee units.
In larger combat, Adepts will serve mostly as a source of damage vs. Zealots serving as meat-shields (as they already do).
We would see a great reduction in Adepts just teleporting on top of enemy armies, and so good positioning of the Shade ability will be more critical in engagements
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units...And why would I warp in zealots on top of units when I am Pretty sure adepts have more health than zealots (correct me if im wrong). I can not see any reasoning to use zealots instead of adepts in this current state
Because Zealots have more DPS against anything that isn't a worker? Or a marine?
|
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. I also really liked the suggestion in another thread, that instead of calling down a mule, it called down something that attached to an SCV and permitted the SCV to mine at the current rate of a mule + 1 scv. This means mineral income would not change in any normal or midgame situation, but would drastically affect it lategame, while simultaneously preventing hidden mule calldowns where you don't have SCVs already at the base.
Dislike that they are still looking at an HP reduction for the adept, a simple -1 dmg to light so they don't 2-hit workers and marines would do amazing, as well as nerfing them later in the game vs T (combat shield marine + stim would die in 3 hits instead of 2). Such an easy fix, but they seem determined to have them 2 shot marines and workers. The question is WHY?? It's the same thing with oracles, they could make them so much better midgame vs units if they simply weakened how insanely they are in rushes.
|
A bit over one month to the release and I still haven't changed my mind: at this stage of LotV I am not interested with SC2 anymore. Unfortunately after the release HotS ladder will soon die.
Macro mechanics changes are interesting. What I mostly don't like is new economy. 12 workers is fine, but less minerals in bases which leads to forced expanding is bad idea IMO.
Second problem that I have with LotV is some BS ideas/units - Adepts, PO on Pylon, Marauder nerf, Ultralisk buff.
And honestly, I liked WoL the most. Why? Because in HotS they gave us MSC with PO, SH, Mines and Oracles. I hate all these units. But I guess, it's just me.
I will wait with buying LotV until it is either massively changed or the price will go down by a lot. I have 3 WoL/HotS accounts, but I don't feel like spending a dime on LotV.
|
On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. I also really liked the suggestion in another thread, that instead of calling down a mule, it called down something that attached to an SCV and permitted the SCV to mine at the current rate of a mule + 1 scv. This means mineral income would not change in any normal or midgame situation, but would drastically affect it lategame, while simultaneously preventing hidden mule calldowns where you don't have SCVs already at the base.
Dislike that they are still looking at an HP reduction for the adept, a simple -1 dmg to light so they don't 2-hit workers and marines would do amazing, as well as nerfing them later in the game vs T (combat shield marine + stim would die in 3 hits instead of 2). Such an easy fix, but they seem determined to have them 2 shot marines and workers. The question is WHY?? It's the same thing with oracles, they could make them so much better midgame vs units if they simply weakened how insanely they are in rushes.
They are increasing the mining time of the mule. This makes it harvest less overall, the first money after dropping a mule comes later and there's more opportunity to snipe a mule while mining to deny harvesting. Sure, this doesn't totally fix the mule hammer (terran is the only race that can make up the delay taking new bases both because of the mule hammer and being able to fly buildings).
|
On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate.
On October 02 2015 14:42 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. I also really liked the suggestion in another thread, that instead of calling down a mule, it called down something that attached to an SCV and permitted the SCV to mine at the current rate of a mule + 1 scv. This means mineral income would not change in any normal or midgame situation, but would drastically affect it lategame, while simultaneously preventing hidden mule calldowns where you don't have SCVs already at the base.
Dislike that they are still looking at an HP reduction for the adept, a simple -1 dmg to light so they don't 2-hit workers and marines would do amazing, as well as nerfing them later in the game vs T (combat shield marine + stim would die in 3 hits instead of 2). Such an easy fix, but they seem determined to have them 2 shot marines and workers. The question is WHY?? It's the same thing with oracles, they could make them so much better midgame vs units if they simply weakened how insanely they are in rushes. They are increasing the mining time of the mule. This makes it harvest less overall, the first money after dropping a mule comes later and there's more opportunity to snipe a mule while mining to deny harvesting. Sure, this doesn't totally fix the mule hammer (terran is the only race that can make up the delay taking new bases both because of the mule hammer and being able to fly buildings).
And Zerg is the only race that can make an opponent's composition completely irrelevant by tech switching their entire production.
Why is one OK but the other is not? Are Terrans winning everything left and right or what?
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On October 02 2015 12:21 WhaleOFaTale wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 11:55 Yiome wrote:On October 02 2015 11:44 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
This is what we’re seeing with the new upgrade in comparison with the Zealot:
Adepts are much better at worker line harassment vs. Zealots are much better at structure harassment.
Defensive cases are more interesting with Zealots warping in right on top of enemy units vs. Adepts needing to warp in with positioning in mind vs. melee units.
In larger combat, Adepts will serve mostly as a source of damage vs. Zealots serving as meat-shields (as they already do).
We would see a great reduction in Adepts just teleporting on top of enemy armies, and so good positioning of the Shade ability will be more critical in engagements
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units...And why would I warp in zealots on top of units when I am Pretty sure adepts have more health than zealots (correct me if im wrong). I can not see any reasoning to use zealots instead of adepts in this current state Er... Because they are going to nerf adept's health? Also zealots are used all the time to snipe building in PvZ... They would have to nerf its heath substantially to make it less than a zealots, correct? You think they would do that
Adept is 140/90 at the moment.. They're talking about removing the 50 shield upgrade (90/90) and then adding a further nerf to health.
Because I always wanted to have supply depot harassment units
You can't do any kind of building denial with Adepts - when's the last time you tried to kill a nexus using Reapers? Unpowered a stargate, perhaps?
|
Decent update, even if a bit small.
The analysis on zealot + adept is spot on. Reducing MM effect (specially larvae) might do the trick I guess.
Still need more units looked at, like others have pointed out (vipers, ultra armor, carrier, liberator, lurker?).
|
"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"
You realize that's basically saying 'We are releasing LotV with unfinished multiplayer, we will finish it after launch'
|
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.
I bet this part was written by his PR expert due to so many people already giving up on LotV. I don't trust them at all to do anything after release if we are to look at their history. Even smaller changes they were unwilling to do without expansions and once time they did (swarm host change) they fucked up.
|
I'm not sure but I think terran is possibly the worst race in late game, has a very decent early game (less vs adepts), but after mid game its completely random.
Also, I don't know if cyclone can be useful in the future, it's a very punctual unit.
|
Structure harassment? Is that an actual thing? With Zealots?
I mean, I'd see structure harassment as a bunch of WoL Reapers sniping a Pylon or maybe a Dark Shrine.
If Protoss warps Zealots into my base, they're going for the SCVs. They might autopilot to depots afterwards but the damage is already done.
Slowing down the attack speed of the Adept doesn't do that much because with a Warp Prism the Adepts can still just cycle in and out whilst their attack comes off cooldown. That'll now be easier even if it is slower. Marines/SCVs will still get two shot, preventing Marines from returning fire. Just reduce their +Light damage, up their normal damage a little and tweak their health.
They won't two shot SCVs/Marines anymore but remain viable and more viable vs everything non-Light.
|
On October 02 2015 17:42 Thezzy wrote:
Structure harassment? Is that an actual thing? With Zealots?
I mean, I'd see structure harassment as a bunch of WoL Reapers sniping a Pylon or maybe a Dark Shrine.
If Protoss warps Zealots into my base, they're going for the SCVs. They might autopilot to depots afterwards but the damage is already done.
Slowing down the attack speed of the Adept doesn't do that much because with a Warp Prism the Adepts can still just cycle in and out whilst their attack comes off cooldown. That'll now be easier even if it is slower. Marines/SCVs will still get two shot, preventing Marines from returning fire. Just reduce their +Light damage, up their normal damage a little and tweak their health.
They won't two shot SCVs/Marines anymore but remain viable and more viable vs everything non-Light.
Hatcheries, spire, lair/hive are very frequent targets of harassment. Given its cost the lurker den will probably be a such as well. Infestation pit was one when it used to be useful for unit production. And killing static D can be considered as that as well, which is sometimes necessary to make harassment work and which the adept really sucks at.
|
On October 02 2015 17:42 Thezzy wrote:
Structure harassment? Is that an actual thing? With Zealots?
vs. zerg it's extremely common to suicide zealots onto tech buildings or hatcheries...
|
On October 02 2015 14:42 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. I also really liked the suggestion in another thread, that instead of calling down a mule, it called down something that attached to an SCV and permitted the SCV to mine at the current rate of a mule + 1 scv. This means mineral income would not change in any normal or midgame situation, but would drastically affect it lategame, while simultaneously preventing hidden mule calldowns where you don't have SCVs already at the base.
Dislike that they are still looking at an HP reduction for the adept, a simple -1 dmg to light so they don't 2-hit workers and marines would do amazing, as well as nerfing them later in the game vs T (combat shield marine + stim would die in 3 hits instead of 2). Such an easy fix, but they seem determined to have them 2 shot marines and workers. The question is WHY?? It's the same thing with oracles, they could make them so much better midgame vs units if they simply weakened how insanely they are in rushes. They are increasing the mining time of the mule. This makes it harvest less overall, the first money after dropping a mule comes later and there's more opportunity to snipe a mule while mining to deny harvesting. Sure, this doesn't totally fix the mule hammer (terran is the only race that can make up the delay taking new bases both because of the mule hammer and being able to fly buildings).
I agree, it just seems like they are trying a lot of tweaks to the mule because they aren't satisfied with it, but it seems like there's such an easy fix to me as opposed to what they are trying to accomplish. Their current change, assuming the mule doesn't get sniped at any point, has a very minimal impact, as it just goes to smooth over the income as opposed to it being slightly more spiked. Overall, unless it's a dramatic increase in mining time, the impact would be very minimal.
On October 02 2015 15:03 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 14:42 y0su wrote:On October 02 2015 14:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still am mind boggled why they don't just marginally reduce the mineral income that a mule generates. It's not an "all or nothing" thing, you can tweak the numbers, geez!
And a huge nerf to the mule hammer lategame would be to add a cooldown for an OC of like 25s or so. Wouldn't prevent it, of course, but would help alleviate. I also really liked the suggestion in another thread, that instead of calling down a mule, it called down something that attached to an SCV and permitted the SCV to mine at the current rate of a mule + 1 scv. This means mineral income would not change in any normal or midgame situation, but would drastically affect it lategame, while simultaneously preventing hidden mule calldowns where you don't have SCVs already at the base.
Dislike that they are still looking at an HP reduction for the adept, a simple -1 dmg to light so they don't 2-hit workers and marines would do amazing, as well as nerfing them later in the game vs T (combat shield marine + stim would die in 3 hits instead of 2). Such an easy fix, but they seem determined to have them 2 shot marines and workers. The question is WHY?? It's the same thing with oracles, they could make them so much better midgame vs units if they simply weakened how insanely they are in rushes. They are increasing the mining time of the mule. This makes it harvest less overall, the first money after dropping a mule comes later and there's more opportunity to snipe a mule while mining to deny harvesting. Sure, this doesn't totally fix the mule hammer (terran is the only race that can make up the delay taking new bases both because of the mule hammer and being able to fly buildings). And Zerg is the only race that can make an opponent's composition completely irrelevant by tech switching their entire production. Why is one OK but the other is not? Are Terrans winning everything left and right or what?
Blizzard stated they didn't like the mule hammer. Also, the playstyle is pretty boring to play against as well as watch. Can't comment on how it is to play.
On October 02 2015 17:34 carcelink wrote:
I'm not sure but I think terran is possibly the worst race in late game, has a very decent early game (less vs adepts), but after mid game its completely random.
Also, I don't know if cyclone can be useful in the future, it's a very punctual unit.
I don't know how it is yet in TvZ lategame (haven't seen one side dominate the other enough, and my own experience is super volatile), but TvP favors T lategame right now due to liberators. T struggles early and midgame vs adepts.
|
On October 02 2015 18:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 17:42 Thezzy wrote:
Structure harassment? Is that an actual thing? With Zealots?
I mean, I'd see structure harassment as a bunch of WoL Reapers sniping a Pylon or maybe a Dark Shrine.
If Protoss warps Zealots into my base, they're going for the SCVs. They might autopilot to depots afterwards but the damage is already done.
Slowing down the attack speed of the Adept doesn't do that much because with a Warp Prism the Adepts can still just cycle in and out whilst their attack comes off cooldown. That'll now be easier even if it is slower. Marines/SCVs will still get two shot, preventing Marines from returning fire. Just reduce their +Light damage, up their normal damage a little and tweak their health.
They won't two shot SCVs/Marines anymore but remain viable and more viable vs everything non-Light. Hatcheries, spire, lair/hive are very frequent targets of harassment. Given its cost the lurker den will probably be a such as well. Infestation pit was one when it used to be useful for unit production. And killing static D can be considered as that as well, which is sometimes necessary to make harassment work and which the adept really sucks at.
Yeah vs Zerg it is a thing given that their building health is lower and can't lift off.
The Zealots are however garantueed to die afterwards unlike say a Marauder drop sniping a Forge and getting out.
The term structure harassment just felt a bit weird when talking about Zealots vs Adepts but I guess that's just from my Terran standpoint. 
|
still no nerf on liberators or Lurkers? lol and now their going to buff the swarm hosts? sounds a bit more like Legacy of the Swarm at this point GG Blizzard.... (david kim)
|
On October 02 2015 18:44 Dratini25 wrote:
still no nerf on liberators or Lurkers? lol and now their going to buff the swarm hosts? sounds a bit more like Legacy of the Swarm at this point GG Blizzard.... (david kim)
I think if they want to test balance they need to do the balancing in the same order game goes
Early game(adept, ravager)->see results and twerk-> midgame (Lurker, Liberator, Disruptor)->see results and twerk-> late game (carriers maybe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
