|
On October 15 2015 19:18 opisska wrote:
@anyone complaining about mechanical difficulties of using Cyclones: isn't that exactly what people wanted? I really don't see any harm in having in the game units that aren't very usefull unless you are extremely good, as long as there are other units that can be used instead of them. Really, all; this talk about "overlap" is silly. Having extra options that you do not use does not harm you in any way. The extra icons on the factory are not going to lose you the game.
If right now, cyclone doesn't seem to be great, wait until top korean pros will get hands of them. The unit screams of potential.
The unit screams of "KILL ME PLEASE!".
For what reason would I get a 150/150/3 unit that needs multiple steps to make it shoot air units when I can make vikings which are cheaper and more reliable at AA job?
People did not ask for mechanical difficulties. We are not masochists to ask for such a thing. What we simply asked for for over a thousand time was to have the units much more responsive and reliable. AKA "Depth of Micro". Not spam clicks to make the unit do the normal job of shooting and automate the only fun process which is kiting and positioning the unit.
Here is the situation. We need AA from factory. Cyclone does not the job properly. We need changes for it to do so. One of the proposed solutions is to make it Goliath 2.0.
|
remove thor and remove this rubbish cyclone that does not add anything to the game, and it's only an attempt to avoid introducing goliath
and bring back goliath, also reduce gas from siege to 100 and buff a bit its damage, we don't nee fancy units that are worse at their role that what we had in the past
sorry blizzard but the trio, vulture-liath-tank, was perfect in any way, and unchangeable, this is proven by how hard they are trying, yet they fail miserably everytime
|
On October 15 2015 21:00 Garmer wrote:
sorry blizzard but the trio, vulture-liath-tank, was perfect in any way, and unchangeable, this is proven by how hard they are trying, yet they fail miserably everytime
Ah... And that trio is what made me go back to BW 
As everyone mentioned. It won't work any other way than this. Even the hellions because of the line up splash damage they need to be balanced around that so they won't be op vs workers. But in skirmishing they suck hard. You used to see Vultures attack Protoss bases and doing real damage (Not killing workers and runaway). But planting mines and gaining some map control. In addition they could fight zealots well unlike Hellions, Hellbats were introduced for that reason. To cover the lack of Hellions of fighting zealots head on. They are good at lining up zealots for charge and snipe. But not in an actual combat
|
First the Cyclone is not fun to play with!
Secondly the design of this unit is horrible.
And that's already enough to kick it out of the game!
|
Hi again,
pls remember we also dont want to have a BW 2.0. Im totally ok with the Hellion>>>Hellbat. Ist fun to play with them in mech play and their role is ok. Alos in BW could 4 vultures completly destroy a worker line. I have seen it in pro matches!
SC II LotV is fun to play but Blizzards has to realize that the cyclone is a stupid unit at ist current state and not the unit we want to have in Terran mech!
The cyclone hat to be redesigned or has to get out of the game. We need a unit like the Goliath (it can be the cyckone but not with the lock on mechanic). I like SC II very much. But Blizzard needs to listen more to us in case of the cyclone and micro. We want to have a G2A Unit and not this medicore unit. We need more reactive micro and more positional play.
Blizzard we told you again and again make Mech play possible and Terran a more flexible Race (Biostyle is boring to watch all the time)! The cyclone at his current state is not the solution!
|
we already have BW 2.0, the problem is that it is a bad BW 2.0
look vulture = hellbat + hellion + widowmine
liath = cyclone + thor
tank = worst tank
it's like they tried so hard to not copy BW, and have disbanded a perfectly functional units
|
The Cyclone is much more interesting as a poking, anti-armored, and map-control unit than it is as anti-air. As such, if it's still too weak I'd like to see Blizzard reduce the lock-on cooldown or the cost.
But the jury's still out on whether it's too weak. The core stats are quite good, and I'd like to see the Korean pros play with it for a while, since the unit needs constant babysitting to be cost effective.
|
@Gamer
I like SC II more than BW. I like hellion play. I like that the siege tank is weaker but the problem is its too weak. Also they didnt make a bad Broodwar 2.0. Widowmines are completly different to use than spidermines. I hate this BW Hype all the time and discussions. Blizzard did a good ob with SC II most people who complain about it have no clue about what they are talking about!
On Topic: We need a strong G2A Unit. Blizzard needs to realize this. If this would be the cyclone or the Goliath is not relevant. The air attack should be removed from the Thor make him ground only and give us a faster ground 2 air unit. Also the lockdown ability is irrelevant if we have not a strong g2a attack!
|
How strong do you need the G2A to be?
Lock-on does 30dps (Blizzard time) to all armored air (spell damage, so it ignores armor), and with 50% lock-on uptime you're still doing ~25 dps. The Viking does anywhere between 11 to 13 dps to the units you want to use it against (Tempests, Carriers, Broodlords). A Viking is 150/75/2, a Cyclone is 150/150/3. Stat-wise, the Cyclone's already way more cost and supply efficient than anything else coming out of the factory or starport.
If that isn't enough, maybe the solution should be nerfing mass air (specifically the range, which makes it incredibly hard to engage into), instead of ramping Cyclone G2A to absurd levels and introducing even more power creep and dumb hard counters into the game?
|
On October 16 2015 01:22 Athenau wrote:
If that isn't enough, maybe the solution should be nerfing mass air (specifically the range, which makes it incredibly hard to engage into), instead of ramping Cyclone G2A to absurd levels and introducing even more power creep and dumb hard counters into the game?
I like this suggestion. You are able to play very safe with vikings and their 9 range making every other form of AA less effective. They should bring it down to 6 and improve mobility.
|
"So...basically a SC2 Goliath without the goliath name...Sorry."
This is highly logical, with a strong detailed argument to back it up, makes alot of sense and would make the unit much less gimmicky.
Basically, DK is not going to do it.
|
|
|
The fix for the cyclone is to make it a strictly gimmick unit that has no place in core armies. It will be too fast and fragile to move with a mech ball. It will only be good at dealing damage to single units with no ability to trade damage for damage in actual A-move engagements. And then it won't even be good at worker harass because it can realistically only kill 1 unit every 10 seconds. It will have only 1 role: killing stalkers on the map when the cyclones outnumber the stalkers (which will never happen once the stalkers have blink and can gang up on the cyclones).
The new Cyclone is terrible TvT (utterly countered by tanks, wrecked by bio, don't even try versus well spread liberators).
The new Cyclone is rotten TvP because its fragility will render it useless against blink-stalkers (and it can't stand up to air units now either with less health).
The new Cyclone will be even worse TvZ (it won't even trade well with roaches anymore due to lower health).
|
Well seems like David Kim is "locked on" to make this lock on ability stay, seeing the latest community update.
Bit of shame really
|
On October 16 2015 01:22 Athenau wrote:
How strong do you need the G2A to be?
Lock-on does 30dps (Blizzard time) to all armored air (spell damage, so it ignores armor), and with 50% lock-on uptime you're still doing ~25 dps. The Viking does anywhere between 11 to 13 dps to the units you want to use it against (Tempests, Carriers, Broodlords). A Viking is 150/75/2, a Cyclone is 150/150/3. Stat-wise, the Cyclone's already way more cost and supply efficient than anything else coming out of the factory or starport.
If that isn't enough, maybe the solution should be nerfing mass air (specifically the range, which makes it incredibly hard to engage into), instead of ramping Cyclone G2A to absurd levels and introducing even more power creep and dumb hard counters into the game?
The problem with the unit isn't really with DPS. As I said on my analysis on my post, cyclone's number is actually pretty damn good. Looks incredible on paper. But fact that it needs to close in and expose itself to fire and it being very bulky doesn't help it at all.
Especially when unit is bit fragile against the high singular target dps dealers it is mainly made against makes it drop off very fast as it needs very large space to work with to engage, and expose itself to majority of fire BEFORE it actually can attack. That means it will miss the first few volleys as it needs to target lock on for all the cyclone you have.
With it costing 150/150 and 3 pop, each and every cyclone lost hurts, and the mechanic involved doesn't help with it. As you engage, you will be losing those precious 3 population 150/150 cyclone at rapid rate which means the damage potential pretty much goes down the cliff before even touching opponents air.
Rather than changing absolutely everything, why not just make the unit more expandable so it doesn't suffer from power creep and absurd drop-off?
|
On October 15 2015 12:31 jinjin5000 wrote:Here is what I suggest - Reduce its supply cost to 2
- Reduce its big 150/150 cost to maybe match viking's in 150/75
- Reduce its speed so its slightly slower or as fast as stalker
- Remove Lock-on and give it mediocre ground damage,giving it flat damage
- Give it long range Anti-Air attack that has low damage point
This is what should be done, but don't worry, the lock-on, ground strength and high cost are here to stay. What would we complain about otherwise ?
|
Guys,
i have a question. Do you think the damage buff on lock on will help. Im not sure. Also David Kim said in a previous post that the cyclone might get removed if it doesnt work out right but he still wants to try it out a bit. I think thats fair. Wha tdo you think?
|
On October 16 2015 22:35 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
Guys,
i have a question. Do you think the damage buff on lock on will help. Im not sure. Also David Kim said in a previous post that the cyclone might get removed if it doesnt work out right but he still wants to try it out a bit. I think thats fair. Wha tdo you think?
Answering your question, no it won't. Cyclone's issue is beyond flat damage buff. The real question is. If the unit proves that it completely have no place in the game and gets removed. Will urgent steps be made to re introduce the Goliath to replace it? Or Terran will end up with 1 single unit entering LOTV?
|
Yes, give us the Goliath, do it!
|
@Wrath SCII
You know that Blizzard has many prototypes of Units and that SC II gets improved after release? I think we can get another unit. Or the cyclone get fixed more. I hate lock on.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
