|
Lurker timing
Litterllay the least damaging thing to LOTV right now
Liberator
Yeah, let's make another unit that need a fusion core upgrade to be usefull. That worked well with the cyclone. Maybe, just maybe, think about the fact it's doing the siege tank job from the air, therefore it's gonna be a binary "either OP either useless" unit?
Carrier
"Much stronger units than in HOTS". In HOTS, you can't beat 8+ carriers/storm as terran. In HOTS, you can't beat 10+ carriers/storm as zerg. The situation never happened because carrier switch was suicide for protoss. So yeah, let's "buff the unit to make it stronger". Brilliant call.
Siege tank drop
As I mentionned, the liberator is doing the siege tank's job, which is still terrible outside your base. Maybe think about a numbers buff + more opened map, rather than pursuing a thing that's too micro intensive to be used as harassment and TvT killing?
Adept
GIVE THE ADEPT ITS OLD STRENGTH AND MOVE IT TO TWILIGHT TECH ALREADY
Photon Overcharge
Yeah, "let's change SC2 and solve the HOTS design issues". "While keeping the most band aidy spell in the RTS history !".
Nydus Worm
"Why decrease the nydus cost to make it more accessible ? Better make it unfair and stupid !"
Automated tournament schedule
Litterally the least important thing about SC2 right now.
|
On October 23 2015 18:59 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I don't understand why they don't want to remove the release interceptors thing. It's been problematic since it was introduced.
Because blizzard doesnt like to go back on changes they made. They are stubborn and try to force things their way.
|
Even if I find myself disagreeing a lot with Blizzard it can't be said enough that these updates are great. Probs to them for that.
Now, remove the Liberator already 
|
On October 23 2015 21:02 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 18:59 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I don't understand why they don't want to remove the release interceptors thing. It's been problematic since it was introduced. Because blizzard doesnt like to go back on changes they made. They are stubborn and try to force things their way.
Yeah, but this is exactly the attitude that leads to complex, inelegant and often bad changes...
|
On October 23 2015 19:23 Vindicare605 wrote:
So basically it's going to take some SERIOUS abuse of the Nydus Worm in the pro scene before Blizz decides to do anything about it.
Not saying that's going to happen or not, but that's still frustrating to hear from them.
The abuse is already going on. They're refusing to admit they released something 100% broken on the lvl of 7g blink all in since you have to blind counter it as T and if the Z goes for something else you're fucked.
|
On October 23 2015 10:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 09:40 ETisME wrote:
Carrier is such a problematic dull unit, I wish we would look past bw and just remove it all together. I think the unit idea would be really interesting. A unit that can release other units and then you can either try to kill the carrier, or the interceptors, depending on what type of counter you choose. And the carrier is kind of independend from the interceptors, so you can run away and stuff. But you are right, the actual implementation just kind of sucks. The carrier is too slow to actually micro out of attacks with too much HP to make up for it. The leash range has always been implemented badly and only now for the first time doesn't trigger all the interceptors to return home all the time and even now I'm not sure if it really works 100% like it should. The T3 placement makes the unit very commited, same for the way the interceptors upgrade. It's just another "this is a big combat thing that flies that I mustn't ever trade and that I need to sit tight forever to get to"-unit in SC2 with no clear weakness and no fun way to use it.
I would go further to say the design is fairly problematic itself.
Everytime it attacks, it just makes the screen cluster and extremely ugly to watch and then it has really crazy power scaling with each additional carrier.
Leash range imo, be it the BW or SC2 current version, isn't a micro that should be forced to add in. It doesn't make any difference for normal viewers and there are far more exciting micro than this.
Plus it is merely a deathball unit, you aren't going to see more roles it's going to play. Not that it's a bad thing, but a deathball unit that is not fun to micro, makes the screen cluster and being this problematic should get removed.
If each race were to remove one unit, I would rank carrier higher than msc and colossus for certain
|
On October 23 2015 03:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
I find it pretty unfortunate that Blizzard has put more effort into testing siege tank drops than they did into testing different economy models. But that ship has long sailed.
So agree with this.
|
Good to hear that sieged tank drops are still up for discussion at least. Instead of introducing and now extending another arbitrary rule (firing delay after drops), it seems more elegant to allow sieged pick ups but have the pick up revert the tank to unsieged. Wasn't pickup micro the original intended design goal? Isn't having clear, uncomplicated rules a goal that has been stated repeatedly throughout the beta?
Similarly, if carriers have turned out to be strong, why not remove one of the things initially added to strengthen them, instead of playing with an unrelated variable? Carriers being out of reach of the enemy is a major problem, and release interceptors exacerbates that. Health doesn't matter if carriers cannot even be engaged.
An even more radical suggestion if carriers need a redesign. Why not remove the automatic starting of interceptors from carriers and make the ability their main way of deploying them (rename release interceptors to "deploy interceptors"). The interceptors will then circle the targeted area and attack everything in it. After a while, they return to the carrier. Effect duration is a bit lower than the ability cooldown (interceptors stay in the carrier to be refueled). If the carrier is out of leash range when the effect expires, the interceptors die.
Advantages of this change:
- interceptors can be used to zone out, but also be avoided (encourages good maneuvering)
- if the Protoss player uses their interceptors prematurely or carelessly, their opponent can force an engagement while the ability is on cooldown
- makes carriers less of an "A move" unit: engagements have to be chosen more carefully
- the opponent can force the carriers away while their interceptors are deployed, so that they will die
TLDR: remove carrier "auto attack", make the ability their main way of attack, reward remaining in range of deployed interceptors instead of allowing carriers to move away.
|
I'm thinking one easy solutions for sieged tank.
What about sieged tank will be loaded as unsieged tank? so that when it's dropped it needs to enter siege mode again?
I think it's a reasonable nerf to the siege tank drop harassment but in the meanwhile it provides a new micro potential in engagements (terran could switch siege mode instantly with medivac)
right now i don't feel good for protoss. It is now too hard for Protoss to get a good and fairly-okay-to-micro army.
|
Bisutopia19152 Posts
Think we can put campaign requests in here too?
I'd really like the WoL campaign to have an archives like HoTS. I would love easy access to the missions please!
|
On October 23 2015 23:23 templarjer wrote:
I'm thinking one easy solutions for sieged tank.
What about sieged tank will be loaded as unsieged tank? so that when it's dropped it needs to enter siege mode again?
I think it's a reasonable nerf to the siege tank drop harassment but in the meanwhile it provides a new micro potential in engagements (terran could switch siege mode instantly with medivac)
right now i don't feel good for protoss. It is now too hard for Protoss to get a good and fairly-okay-to-micro army.
With that said, we’d like to continue testing the pick-up and drop micro of Siege Tanks in Siege mode. As a last resort we definitely have the option of doing either a complete removal or using the suggestion of picking-up to save Siege Mode tanks, but we want to test out tuning changes before making this call. Currently we’re looking at longer delay values when a Siege Tank in Siege mode is dropped before they can attack.
Already mentioned in the Blizzard post, so it does seem likely to happen if deployed tank pick-ups and drops gets scrapped.
|
On October 23 2015 23:01 Valyrian wrote:
Good to hear that sieged tank drops are still up for discussion at least. Instead of introducing and now extending another arbitrary rule (firing delay after drops), it seems more elegant to allow sieged pick ups but have the pick up revert the tank to unsieged. Wasn't pickup micro the original intended design goal? Isn't having clear, uncomplicated rules a goal that has been stated repeatedly throughout the beta?
Similarly, if carriers have turned out to be strong, why not remove one of the things initially added to strengthen them, instead of playing with an unrelated variable? Carriers being out of reach of the enemy is a major problem, and release interceptors exacerbates that. Health doesn't matter if carriers cannot even be engaged.
An even more radical suggestion if carriers need a redesign. Why not remove the automatic starting of interceptors from carriers and make the ability their main way of deploying them (rename release interceptors to "deploy interceptors"). The interceptors will then circle the targeted area and attack everything in it. After a while, they return to the carrier. Effect duration is a bit lower than the ability cooldown (interceptors stay in the carrier to be refueled). If the carrier is out of leash range when the effect expires, the interceptors die.
Advantages of this change:
- interceptors can be used to zone out, but also be avoided (encourages good maneuvering)
- if the Protoss player uses their interceptors prematurely or carelessly, their opponent can force an engagement while the ability is on cooldown
- makes carriers less of an "A move" unit: engagements have to be chosen more carefully
- the opponent can force the carriers away while their interceptors are deployed, so that they will die
TLDR: remove carrier "auto attack", make the ability their main way of attack, reward remaining in range of deployed interceptors instead of allowing carriers to move away.
This is actually a change that I can get behind. It would keep Carriers as powerful as before but their use would rely more on positioning and thinking ahead.
|
On October 23 2015 20:34 JackONeill wrote:
Liberator
Yeah, let's make another unit that need a fusion core upgrade to be usefull. That worked well with the cyclone. Maybe, just maybe, think about the fact it's doing the siege tank job from the air, therefore it's gonna be a binary "either OP either useless" unit?
yep, I wonder why they just don't increase the research time and the cost, seems so wierd to put this upgrade in the fucion core
|
Thank you Blizzard. Lurkers, Liberators and toss mass air was way too frustrating. Time to play LotV again! 
|
We agree with your feedback in that even after the build time reduction, Carriers with the Release Interceptor ability are most likely too strong for cost in head-on engagements.
If the game problem is caused by the new ability then the ability is the problem and not the original unit.
The goal for the Carrier is to not nerf the unit too much, as we would like them to be much stronger units in LotV than they were in HotS.
The fact which you mentioned is that the carrier is a perfectly balanced unit for over 5 years now.
Please just let carriers exist like they were in WoL and HotS because carriers are a fine and well balanced unit.
|
On October 23 2015 23:26 BisuDagger wrote:
Think we can put campaign requests in here too?
I'd really like the WoL campaign to have an archives like HoTS. I would love easy access to the missions please!
I think there's a mission archive console on the bridge.
|
On October 23 2015 18:59 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I don't understand why they don't want to remove the release interceptors thing. It's been problematic since it was introduced.
They could've buffed the HotS siege tank and carrier by simply changing numbers around. Instead, they had to give them a bullshit new unit interaction and a bullshit new ability that they are way too committed to. Now, they are inventing new inelegant ways of working around their bullshit.
"Sir, we found a nail on your flat tire. So we changed your wiper fluid. If that doesn't work, we'll change your brake fluid."
|
Bisutopia19152 Posts
On October 24 2015 00:48 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 23:26 BisuDagger wrote:
Think we can put campaign requests in here too?
I'd really like the WoL campaign to have an archives like HoTS. I would love easy access to the missions please! I think there's a mission archive console on the bridge.
If you beat the game you lose that unless you keep a save. And it takes lots of extra time getting to that archives instead of "oh I'd love to play that one WoL mission." Bam I can immediately load it up. xD
|
On October 24 2015 01:35 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 00:48 Gfire wrote:On October 23 2015 23:26 BisuDagger wrote:
Think we can put campaign requests in here too?
I'd really like the WoL campaign to have an archives like HoTS. I would love easy access to the missions please! I think there's a mission archive console on the bridge. If you beat the game you lose that unless you keep a save. And it takes lots of extra time getting to that archives instead of "oh I'd love to play that one WoL mission." Bam I can immediately load it up. xD
yeah, I would love that too. Lost my safe, beat all the missions except the last one on brutal and now I would have to play through all of that again. 
|
I still feel sad for Lurker.
Such a cool unit forced into a niche roll
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
