|
On October 23 2015 20:34 JackONeill wrote:
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.
Agree 100% with all of this, while I'm glad they are at least doing more then they did last patch I am totally fucking lost on the balance team's approach right now, it's like they don't even play their own game and they are just theory crafting and putting it into patches.
The Siege Tank thing is so true, literally, give it 60 flat damage and put the siege upgrade in and the community would be OVERJOYED.
|
First off: HOLY SHIT PEOPLE STOP WHINING
What the hell is going on in this thread and for the last 10 LOTV updates???? Every fucking update I see people just being negative about it and just automatically shut it down as a shit update because they are having trouble with a particular unit or strategy and it was not addressed, or they are butthurt because the macro update suggested by some TL users was not used.
+ Show Spoiler +
For macro: Blizz tested the different models, analyzed, and came to the conclusion their current model is what is best for the game, all the while justifying their decision in several updates. I personally liked the TL model, but I did recognize that it had its own set of problems as well. Just stop focusing on this when giving feedback.
I feel that people just automatically post a negative post regardless of the update and without thinking of how it might help the game. Ever since Blizzard decided to post these updates, people have been pretty fkn negative and acting all high and mighty as if they were game designers who knew better than professionals doing this shit for more than 10 years.
PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK
|
yeh i literally had a conversation with a twitch user who claimed he could do a better job than david kim. when i asked him what experience or education he had for designing games he shifted the focus with rapid rhetoric. lel.
eventually i gave him a shot to spell out his "great ideas" but after a reasonably lengthy back-and-forth, it was evident that his ideas and model for the game were pretty arbitrary and didn't adhere to a sound system anyway
|
"PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK"
If you aren't crying about dumb changes then your part of the problem. Are you going to sit there and defend Siege Tanks sucking 4 years later? Renerfing the Carrier into useless or OP? Invulnerable Nydus? The Cyclone micro managing itself for the Terran player? Photon Pylon?
Don't get me wrong theres alot going right with LOTV, but don't delude yourself with the constructive feedback nonsense, there is ALOT wrong with LOTV and some of them are long standing issues that the balance team seems to just want to sweep under the rug and not do anything about.
|
On October 24 2015 02:15 ZeroCartin wrote:First off: HOLY SHIT PEOPLE STOP WHININGWhat the hell is going on in this thread and for the last 10 LOTV updates???? Every fucking update I see people just being negative about it and just automatically shut it down as a shit update because they are having trouble with a particular unit or strategy and it was not addressed, or they are butthurt because the macro update suggested by some TL users was not used. + Show Spoiler +
For macro: Blizz tested the different models, analyzed, and came to the conclusion their current model is what is best for the game, all the while justifying their decision in several updates. I personally liked the TL model, but I did recognize that it had its own set of problems as well. Just stop focusing on this when giving feedback.
I feel that people just automatically post a negative post regardless of the update and without thinking of how it might help the game. Ever since Blizzard decided to post these updates, people have been pretty fkn negative and acting all high and mighty as if they were game designers who knew better than professionals doing this shit for more than 10 years. PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK
Could not have said it better. It is literally one giant bitch fest any time one of these threads is released.
|
Every time I watch LotV I'm confused as to why Blizzard bothered buffing the siege tank only to make the liberator, which is a better siege tank than the siege tank
|
On October 24 2015 02:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:
Every time I watch LotV I'm confused as to why Blizzard bothered buffing the siege tank only to make the liberator, which is a better siege tank than the siege tank
Sigh ...
Except for that whole thing where they're completely different and don't fill the same role at all ...
Blizzard did not buff the siege tank, btw. The pick up was a response to the "point and click" death abilities given to Zerg and Protoss (bile and disruptors). Those abilities inherently nerf the tank, so the pickup is really a response to that, imo.
|
On October 24 2015 02:40 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 02:15 ZeroCartin wrote:First off: HOLY SHIT PEOPLE STOP WHININGWhat the hell is going on in this thread and for the last 10 LOTV updates???? Every fucking update I see people just being negative about it and just automatically shut it down as a shit update because they are having trouble with a particular unit or strategy and it was not addressed, or they are butthurt because the macro update suggested by some TL users was not used. + Show Spoiler +
For macro: Blizz tested the different models, analyzed, and came to the conclusion their current model is what is best for the game, all the while justifying their decision in several updates. I personally liked the TL model, but I did recognize that it had its own set of problems as well. Just stop focusing on this when giving feedback.
I feel that people just automatically post a negative post regardless of the update and without thinking of how it might help the game. Ever since Blizzard decided to post these updates, people have been pretty fkn negative and acting all high and mighty as if they were game designers who knew better than professionals doing this shit for more than 10 years. PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK Could not have said it better. It is literally one giant bitch fest any time one of these threads is released.
If you think this looks bad, you should read the comments on the Blizzard forums.
|
On October 24 2015 03:18 Mistakes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 02:40 hoby2000 wrote:On October 24 2015 02:15 ZeroCartin wrote:First off: HOLY SHIT PEOPLE STOP WHININGWhat the hell is going on in this thread and for the last 10 LOTV updates???? Every fucking update I see people just being negative about it and just automatically shut it down as a shit update because they are having trouble with a particular unit or strategy and it was not addressed, or they are butthurt because the macro update suggested by some TL users was not used. + Show Spoiler +
For macro: Blizz tested the different models, analyzed, and came to the conclusion their current model is what is best for the game, all the while justifying their decision in several updates. I personally liked the TL model, but I did recognize that it had its own set of problems as well. Just stop focusing on this when giving feedback.
I feel that people just automatically post a negative post regardless of the update and without thinking of how it might help the game. Ever since Blizzard decided to post these updates, people have been pretty fkn negative and acting all high and mighty as if they were game designers who knew better than professionals doing this shit for more than 10 years. PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK Could not have said it better. It is literally one giant bitch fest any time one of these threads is released. If you think this looks bad, you should read the comments on the Blizzard forums.
Oh yeah. This is just disappointment and frustration. Obviously the majority of people on TL are invested in the game to a certain degree, and are playing it. LotV is awesome, and we all want it to be awesome, and we all have different ideas of how it can be awesome.
There also seems to be local consensus on things that are just broken that don't seem to get mentions, and that irritates people.
Blizzard forums are unreadable. It's like the Bronze league of LotV forum discussions.
|
On October 24 2015 02:32 jpg06051992 wrote:
"PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK"
If you aren't crying about dumb changes then your part of the problem. Are you going to sit there and defend Siege Tanks sucking 4 years later? Renerfing the Carrier into useless or OP? Invulnerable Nydus? The Cyclone micro managing itself for the Terran player? Photon Pylon?
Don't get me wrong theres alot going right with LOTV, but don't delude yourself with the constructive feedback nonsense, there is ALOT wrong with LOTV and some of them are long standing issues that the balance team seems to just want to sweep under the rug and not do anything about.
First off: Crying about dumb changes = Whining =/= constructive feedback.
I dont kno where you are taking that "sweep under the rug" shit you are mentioning. I agree giving them pointers on things that are not looking right is a good thing, but not in the whiney manner.
Carriers bieng OP: Carriers are a balance thing and can be toned post launch. Even so, Blizz has already addressed this.
Siege Tanks sucking: you cant possibly predict siege tanks will suck in 4 years. Its not like they will launch the game, and wont touch it after launch. Stop being dramatic.
Invulnerable Nyuds: they addressed this on this patch, and will try something different.
Cyclone: This is also being addressed
Photon pylon: this as well
|
On October 24 2015 02:59 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 02:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:
Every time I watch LotV I'm confused as to why Blizzard bothered buffing the siege tank only to make the liberator, which is a better siege tank than the siege tank Sigh ... Except for that whole thing where they're completely different and don't fill the same role at all ... Blizzard did not buff the siege tank, btw. The pick up was a response to the "point and click" death abilities given to Zerg and Protoss (bile and disruptors). Those abilities inherently nerf the tank, so the pickup is really a response to that, imo.
What? You can't be serious. Both are zone control units and are basically a ground and air version of each other except the liberator does a better job because of its multifunctionality. And yes Blizzard did buff the tank, the ability to pick up a siege tank in siege mode is a buff to the unit. That's not even arguable, it was done to make the tank better, which is a buff no matter how you look at it.
|
On October 24 2015 04:25 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 02:59 TimeSpiral wrote:On October 24 2015 02:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:
Every time I watch LotV I'm confused as to why Blizzard bothered buffing the siege tank only to make the liberator, which is a better siege tank than the siege tank Sigh ... Except for that whole thing where they're completely different and don't fill the same role at all ... Blizzard did not buff the siege tank, btw. The pick up was a response to the "point and click" death abilities given to Zerg and Protoss (bile and disruptors). Those abilities inherently nerf the tank, so the pickup is really a response to that, imo. What? You can't be serious. Both are zone control units and are basically a ground and air version of each other except the liberator does a better job because of its multifunctionality. And yes Blizzard did buff the tank, the ability to pick up a siege tank in siege mode is a buff to the unit. That's not even arguable, it was done to make the tank better, which is a buff no matter how you look at it.
Of course I'm serious, lol. Okay, so you don't buy my explanation of the tank's implicit nerfs. *shrugs* It's a wash, imo. Maybe a net negative. Hard to say.
Liberator's AG is single target. The targeting area has a relatively small radius. Casting the radius has a long range, but this is a double-edged sword. A benefit and a vulnerability. Liberator's cannot attack structures (read that last one again).
Tank's siege mode is AOE damage and has a long-range radial attack. Tanks can attack structures.
These units have more important and meaningful differences than they do similarities. They both are stationary while in Defender Mode and Siege Mode. This gives them the feel of "space control", but that's and arbitrary definition of their role.
|
On October 24 2015 02:32 jpg06051992 wrote:
"PLEASE STOP THE WHINING, TRY OUT THE CHANGES AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK"
If you aren't crying about dumb changes then your part of the problem. Are you going to sit there and defend Siege Tanks sucking 4 years later? Renerfing the Carrier into useless or OP? Invulnerable Nydus? The Cyclone micro managing itself for the Terran player? Photon Pylon?
Don't get me wrong theres alot going right with LOTV, but don't delude yourself with the constructive feedback nonsense, there is ALOT wrong with LOTV and some of them are long standing issues that the balance team seems to just want to sweep under the rug and not do anything about.
There goes any credibility you have lol. The cyclone isn't effective at all unless you are moving it. It's the one unit in the game that won't chase enemy units if they're in range. lololol.
|
About the lurker thing, anybody else having the thought that Protoss just doesn't have enough detection a lot of time to combat lurkers? The lurkers sit so far away and are protected by hydra/overseer and can be picked off by ravagers, hydras, later on vipers relatively easily. It often feels like you would need ~3observers at least to be somewhat safe not to die against the cloak, which in the context of needing disruptors and warp prisms but not overcommiting to robo because of mutas feels a bit too much. I mean, sure you can hit them with disruptors and sure, you can do double robo when you confirm the zerg doesn't go air, but I just think it's a bit too easy to lose your detection and most of your army cannot shoot at the lurkers anymore.
Maybe lurkers just shouldn't be cloaked when shooting or something, dunno.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
GIVE THE ADEPT ITS OLD STRENGTH AND MOVE IT TO TWILIGHT TECH ALREADY
Just make a twilight upgrade that adds like 25 hp (not shields), 25% attack speed upgrade and adds a minor guaranteed splash component to its attack so that it can stand its ground against marine marauder medivac that has a few ghosts mixed in
So that we can have protoss t1+upgrade unit that can stand well against terran t1+ upgrade unit without having to hide behind disruptors and carriers
|
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.
Pros
-makes Carriers into a skill-intensive, space control unit as opposed to a massable deathblob
Cons
-makes Carriers into the Liberator
At this point, I would say that the pros outweigh the cons...
|
On October 24 2015 06:34 Cyro wrote:Just make a twilight upgrade that adds like 25 hp (not shields), 25% attack speed upgrade and adds a minor guaranteed splash component to its attack so that it can stand its ground against marine marauder medivac that has a few ghosts mixed in
You want a single unit to be able to fight Marines, Marauders, Medivacs, and Ghosts.
A single easily spammable, warp-it-in-wherever-you-need-it, unit. To fight four units, two of which are tier 2+, one of which costs a gas building to produce. Fight them and not lose. Even though it has one upgrade, and they have a minimum of 2. And you want it to not lose.
Am I understanding you correctly?
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 24 2015 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 06:34 Cyro wrote:GIVE THE ADEPT ITS OLD STRENGTH AND MOVE IT TO TWILIGHT TECH ALREADY Just make a twilight upgrade that adds like 25 hp (not shields), 25% attack speed upgrade and adds a minor guaranteed splash component to its attack so that it can stand its ground against marine marauder medivac that has a few ghosts mixed in You want a single unit to be able to fight Marines, Marauders, Medivacs, and Ghosts. A single easily spammable, warp-it-in-wherever-you-need-it, unit. To fight four units, two of which are tier 2+, one of which costs a gas building to produce. Fight them and not lose. Even though it has one upgrade, and they have a minimum of 2. And you want it to not lose. Am I understanding you correctly?
I want 60 supply of twilight-upgraded adept/zealot/stalker/sentry to not get compeltely destroyed by 40-60 supply of upgraded bio (and nerf other units like colossus appropriately)
|
for the siege tank medivac, allow sieged tanks to be picked up, but when they are dropped, they revert to unsiege. this makes medivacs capable of saving the tanks and is a defensive pick up, not an aggressive one.
|
Also, I want the broodwar nydus back, having a cheap way to transfer units to bases quickly is really ideal here and it fits the theme of zerg better than what we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
