| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
owlman
France58 Posts
isnt that totally ridiculous... now 2base adept allins are even worse than before Seeing the new stat it seems that they are weaker than before mid/late game. At least as a core unit in a direct engagment. Don't forget they lost 80 shield which means a 40% nerf | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
Still like the direction though. Also where are the patch notes? | ||
|
K)Vincent
Belarus29 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On October 03 2015 06:45 Musicus wrote: I don't understand why the Adept upgrade is better than adrenal glands, costs only half and is available way earlier :/. Still like the direction though. Also where are the patch notes? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495889-lotv-beta-balance-update-october-2 If it's a %45 reduction in period isn't that nearly doubling the attack speed? Seems insanely effective. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 03 2015 07:08 K)Vincent wrote: there are so many things wrong about the cost of units/upgrades... like infestor that costs more than ht but they are pure shit while ht is superstrong, liberator costs less than a voidray but is way better and vailable etc. Depends how you look at the race overall, some races have sweet spot units. Not everything should be equivalent. Only thing that matters is that it's balanced and fun. | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 02 2015 01:54 WrathSCII wrote: Macro mechanics We agree with your feedback in that reducing their effectiveness might be a cool idea, so we’ll try it out in the next balance update. We’re currently thinking something like reducing larva per inject to 3, chrono boost speed buff decreased to 15% or so, and increasing the time mules need to spend while mining minerals so that it takes longer to return each trip. 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. Concerning macro mechanics, please focus your discussions around keeping the current ones in the beta vs. reverting back to Heart of the Swarm. This is the last thing we’re trying to decide for macro mechanics. Also, keep in mind that we can continue tuning the numbers for macro mechanics until we arrive in a good place. Translation: "We feel 'negative perceptions' outweighs facts and good game design". John Maynard Keynes famously said "When the facts change, I change my mind". In the case of flip-flopper David Kim, when the facts haven't changed, but bogus perceptions have, he changes his mind. Backpeddle harder. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 03 2015 11:05 crazedrat wrote: We're getting lost in these subtle macro tweaks and the actual balance of the game is overlooked. Zerg now cannot go early pools and the race is bland. You act as if pool first was an entirely different tech tree opening. It's a marginal change that barely impacts anything. | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
On October 03 2015 13:48 FabledIntegral wrote: You act as if pool first was an entirely different tech tree opening. It's a marginal change that barely impacts anything. It changes the PvZ metagame alot actually. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20338 Posts
On October 03 2015 07:11 Gfire wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495889-lotv-beta-balance-update-october-2 If it's a %45 reduction in period isn't that nearly doubling the attack speed? Seems insanely effective. It's an 82% increase to the attack speed, however blizzard doesn't know how to math. They said a 45% reduction in period, what they actually implemented and wrote into the game was a 31% reduction in period (or 45% increase in rate). I like it, have not played with it yet. To be fair, +40% on Adrenal glands is a crazy damage increase - zerglings are extremely good with it, only not massed because strong counters (air armies or large amounts of AOE) are available in the later stages of the game. That's a design thing, not particularly a balance issue with the zergling numbers which are quite good and strong. If adrenal came in earlier or some stephano-esque zerg started rushing hive, i would be very worried about them :D Revert the macro mechanics back to HotS, but with toned down efficiency. I agree with this, for chrono. I think queueing injects is fine. New chrono is roughly the same as the old one in actual production per minute (well, it was a bit better.. and now it's nerfed, so a bit worse), but it cannot be banked or focused effectively. You're desperately trying to get that first colossus or disruptor out in order to hold a push or hit a timing, you could bank chrono for the last 2 minutes while the robo and robo support built.. but what? You can only accelerate it by +15% instead of +50%. The old WOL+HOTS chronoboost was over 3x as effective in this situation. It's the difference between cutting an 80 second build time down to 70 seconds, vs cutting an 80 second build time down to 53 seconds. Old chrono was strong, felt and good in the hands of good players. There could even be a system implemented like what inject has now, so a weaker player (or a strong one who knows what he wants a whole minute in advance) can drop 3 chrono boosts on the same building and they'll run back-to-back without downtime with no further input. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 03 2015 19:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Revert the macro mechanics back to HotS, but with toned down efficiency. I personally think that stacking injects is a really great solution for newer players. I also think that mules having a range is a great thing too and should definitely be in the game, and I think Chronoboost can stay in there too if it's balanced. The problem I see is that Blizzard is still treating macro mechanics as if they are the same. Mules don't do the same thing as injects, and neither does chronoboost. They all have different effects on the game and I think nerfing them to the same degree is not going to help. 4->3 Larva/inject is not the same as less minerals per mule. It has completely different implications and consequences. Why the hell are they treating them like the same thing? Mules without limitations can still create income out of 0 workers, which is impossible for both Protoss and Zerg. What the hell is Zerg going to do with extra larvae if they don't have any income. And what the hell is Protoss chronoboosting? They should take an independent look on the macro mechanics, see what their problems are, and then nerf them accordingly. Don't look at symmetric patching if it's asymmetrical design. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20338 Posts
On October 03 2015 06:04 rauk wrote: isnt that totally ridiculous... now 2base adept allins are even worse than before The 2 base adept all-in that everybody complained about happened early in the game, basically producing four adepts as warpgate research was ticking away and a warp prism got out and then warping your first units produced from the extra gateways into his base behind his wall. It was the LOTV equivelant of a WOL 4gate and is ruined by the introduction of a twilight council. The problem I see is that Blizzard is still treating macro mechanics as if they are the same. Mules don't do the same thing as injects, and neither does chronoboost. They all have different effects on the game and I think nerfing them to the same degree is not going to help. 4->3 Larva/inject is not the same as less minerals per mule. It has completely different implications and consequences. Why the hell are they treating them like the same thing? +1 | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 03 2015 20:26 KeksX wrote: I personally think that stacking injects is a really great solution for newer players. I also think that mules having a range is a great thing too and should definitely be in the game, and I think Chronoboost can stay in there too if it's balanced. The problem I see is that Blizzard is still treating macro mechanics as if they are the same. Mules don't do the same thing as injects, and neither does chronoboost. They all have different effects on the game and I think nerfing them to the same degree is not going to help. 4->3 Larva/inject is not the same as less minerals per mule. It has completely different implications and consequences. Why the hell are they treating them like the same thing? Mules without limitations can still create income out of 0 workers, which is impossible for both Protoss and Zerg. What the hell is Zerg going to do with extra larvae if they don't have any income. And what the hell is Protoss chronoboosting? They should take an independent look on the macro mechanics, see what their problems are, and then nerf them accordingly. Don't look at symmetric patching if it's asymmetrical design. They are toning them down, and the absolute best way to test them would be to tone down symmetrically, as you refer to it. If you have some semblance of balance now, then you'd need to reduce all 3 macro mechanics in some way to keep it balanced. This is the easiest and most sensical way to test it. Don't know why we're trying to create problems where there aren't any. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1549 Posts
I find productions lot slower and lagging behind units in terms of supply by huge comparison v.s. pre-nerf mules. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
| ||
|
BLAiNER
7 Posts
On October 05 2015 22:45 EleanorRIgby wrote: whats going on with the cyclone?? i honestly dont know when i should ever make them, whenever i try and make them or make a build around them they never seem to do well and always underpreform. lock on takes too much time and it only seems good on high hp units. units like ultra/brood/carrier/bc but all those units have as good or better counters already, except maybe the bc/carrier. The cyclone imo is an anti ranged unit for instance... sniping tanks, lurkers, disruptors/colo works very well, also works against massive units as well. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17672 Posts
new secret game from Blizz ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uwd45zZ.jpg) | ||
|
CheddarToss
534 Posts
 | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
