|
Hey everyone – we’re back with another community feedback update. We’ve got a number of different units to discuss this week, as well as some recent considerations around Automated Tournaments.
Lurker timing
We agree this is an issue in PvZ, and are currently looking at increasing the build time on the Lurker Den. However, we don’t want to go too heavy with this nerf because our upcoming Adept buff naturally means that Zerg teching will be slowed down a bit as well. We are aiming to get a change in for this for tomorrow’s balance update.
Liberator
Like many of you pointed out, the Liberator comes out fairly early, and its large range can be a bit problematic on certain maps. We wonder if there’s some potential fun we can have with Liberators early on that don’t have such a high range. We’ve been playtesting a version of the Liberator where the cast range of the ability is very short, but a research isn’t required to be able to transform. In addition, we’ve added a range upgrade to this ability with a Fusion Core requirement so that the high range only comes into play in the late game.
The general idea here is that Liberators could immediately have a lot of interaction, but also be counterable due to the much lower range. Opponents playing against Liberators will need to react and scout accordingly to Terran players that upgrade into the long range once they have a Fusion Core.
Carrier
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. We’ve been trying various changes, and we wonder if just a straight up Carrier health nerf is a decent way to go. This allows Carriers to retain the powerful moments with their new ability, but also allows the counters to Carriers to be stronger as well.
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. But if further nerfs are needed in addition to what we’re doing in tomorrow’s balance update, we can definitely tune it down more in the future.
Siege Tank Medivac drop
As we often point out, it’s not as helpful for us when you give extreme feedback such as “this will never work no matter what, and it has to be completely removed from the game.” I’m sure many of you out there have seen plenty of times throughout this beta process that issues are rarely this extreme.
It’s pretty easy to just do a complete removal of this interaction, and we definitely can if we know for certain that it can’t ever work. Until that point, we want to fully explore various numbers before deciding to give up on a change especially if the potential for it looks good. We’re not saying we disagree with the feedback that it can’t ever work as we definitely saw some examples where the interaction felt like too much (especially in TvT games), but we want to fully explore the idea and make sure we’re not losing something that can be awesome just because of overreacting too quickly.
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.
Adept
Like we talked about last week, we are looking to give +10 shields back to the Adept. We believe going with this nerf and the Warp-in nerfs at the same time was too much of a nerf overall, not because the Adept isn’t a useful unit right now, but mostly because we’d like to push the strength of new units for the release of LotV in order to see new strategies and interactions come up with the new game. We’d like to test out reverting this nerf and see where the Adept stands in strength, now that the Adept Warp-ins aren’t as difficult to deal with due to the Warp-in changes.
Photon Overcharge
We agree with your feedback in that Photon Overcharge may be a bit too spammable right now. Currently however, we’re adjusting multiple things that affect Protoss such as the Lurker timing issue and the early game Adept strength issue. What we’re currently thinking is - if after tomorrow’s patch, both of these things are in a better spot, we can potentially explore increasing Photon Overcharge to 50 energy so that the ability has to be used more strategically and with good positioning. Please give us your thoughts in this area so that we can explore all options before making the right call.
The goal of Photon Overcharge is to allow Protoss players to control specific locations in a powerful, defensive way so that Protoss can keep up with expansions. We believe this is important because of the resource changes, but we do agree that its current raw strength and spammable nature might be an issue.
Nydus Worm
We hear your feedback that the Nydus Worm all-ins can seem nearly unstoppable. At the same time, we haven’t actually seen this strategy in used often enough to make conclusive decisions. We’re not saying we disagree with your feedback, but rather that we want to be careful with nerfs that could be premature overreactions. Our current plan for the Nydus Worm is to watch closely, and if they to turn out to be too strong, we can tune the delay before the units can unload after a Nydus Worm finishes constructing so that players can counter the strategy when they have enough units in position . We believe this sort of change is better than doing a full revert to HotS. Before LoTV, all it really took is pulling workers to kill the Nydus Worm before they can finish constructing. As compared to with the proposed change, depending on how we tune the numbers, having enough units to quickly focus fire down the Nydus will create more interesting moments.
Automated Tournament schedule
We heard your feedback and saw your suggestions regarding automated tournament schedules. The solutions to a majority of your feedback can be answered with the quality of match making. The reason tournaments are currently held every 3 hours in the beta, and the reason why we don’t just start a tournament when the first 8 or 16 players sign up, is because we want automated tournaments to be a competitive experience no matter what skill level you are playing at. For example, if we were to go with the somewhat popular suggestion of having tournaments up all the time, and we just initiate tournaments every time we have enough players, the skill of players in that tournament will potentially range from Bronze to Grand Master.
Also, due to the low population of the beta, we’re clearly seeing that the match making quality per tournament is not good right now. Of course the match making quality will be better at the launch of LotV, but we do want to start off more conservative, since making tournaments more frequent in the future is much easier than reducing the frequency. We are also exploring ways to have more frequent tournaments at specific times, such as when we expect influxes of players to automated tournaments at the beginning of a new ladder season.
We don’t have set plans on where we’ll land regarding the amount and frequency of tournaments in LotV, so we wanted to relay our current thoughts to you guys so that you can understand our position and also share your thoughts.
Thank you for continuing to iterate your ideas and suggestions throughout the beta, and we hope you enjoy the upcoming changes!
Source
|
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.
|
Still don't get the adept buff...
|
On October 23 2015 03:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Still don't get the adept buff...
Me too
I think they have to make some changes with carriers cause way too powerful,
and nydus worm because that's completely insane not to be able to stop that when it arrives in your base
Regarding siege tanks in TvT especially, but I do like this siege tanks drops so I dunno what they could do to fix that.
|
you know... I know a lot of people complain about how the balance process has been going throughout the beta, but it is awesome that they at least have been letting us know what their thought process is on a lot of the issues. Sure they may not address them immediately, but the fact that they are taking initiative in reading everything players are talking about is a huge step in the right direction for every one. Bravo!
|
OP... center the image...
^[center^]...^[/center^] (remove the '^' and replace the '...' with the image link)
|
nydus worm:
-remove invincibility
-when placed on creep, costs less and no global sound
-when placed off creep, costs more and has global sound
-balance is just numbers
please.
|
On October 23 2015 03:12 purakushi wrote:
nydus worm:
-remove invincibility
-when placed on creep, costs less and no global sound
-when placed off creep, costs more and has global sound
-balance is just numbers
please.
Yeah sure, make it impossible to ever be effective again.....
No, I like there proposal. It's either that or make it un-healable. Either is enough.
|
I can't load battle.net at all. Are you guys having the same issue?
|
On October 23 2015 03:14 Timelog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 03:12 purakushi wrote:
nydus worm:
-remove invincibility
-when placed on creep, costs less and no global sound
-when placed off creep, costs more and has global sound
-balance is just numbers
please. Yeah sure, make it impossible to ever be effective again..... No, I like there proposal. It's either that or make it un-healable. Either is enough.
Hence the "balance is just numbers". It could have increased armour, more morphing health, building time etc. If all else fails, invincibility, I guess. The important parts here are points 2 and 3, so nyduses see more play outside of attacks.
|
They missed the mark with Nydus. It is plenty counterable. The problem is the 800 HP of instant transfuses it receives if 4 queens are the first thing about of the Nydus. Compare that with if roaches are the first things out, the Nydus can simply die and only 4 roaches escape.
|
On October 23 2015 03:12 WrathSCII wrote:
OP... center the image...
^[center^]...^[/center^] (remove the '^' and replace the '...' with the image link)
I browse TL very zoomed in so it looked fine to me, but you're right I should do that
also... I KNOW HOW TO CENTER STUFF ON TL!!!! You don't get almost 20k posts and not know basic shit. Sorry, I got a little miffed over that
|
Giving the Nydus worm a lot of armor would still make the most sense to me. If you nerf the health on carriers, decreasing the building time a litte would be fine imo.
Thanks for the update!
|
So liberator range on fusion core will be as useful as medivac upgrade on starport techlab? Or is it viable in LotV to get the fusion core that much faster than usual to make this upgrade count?
|
DK still ignoring ultras and parasitic bomb... shouldn't be surprised.
|
|
|
On October 23 2015 03:21 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 03:12 WrathSCII wrote:
OP... center the image...
^[center^]...^[/center^] (remove the '^' and replace the '...' with the image link) I browse TL very zoomed in so it looked fine to me, but you're right I should do that also... I KNOW HOW TO CENTER STUFF ON TL!!!! You don't get almost 20k posts and not know basic shit. Sorry, I got a little miffed over that
I guess I'll have to apologize then 
But I also got irritated that I didn't get to post this week as I'm trying to be consistent with it 
|
The nydus is useless if it can die before deploying troops. The nydus is too strong if by the time you kill it everything is already in your base. The best nerf would be to make it spew out units at a slower rate. Maybe with a hive upgrade to make it normal speed again?
Although, maybe it just needs to be scouted properly? Denying overlord vision isn't that hard if you know they are going to nydus. Going for a fast third and dying to a nydus isn't a problem, that's just a build order loss because you didn't scout.
|
On October 23 2015 03:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
They missed the mark with Nydus. It is plenty counterable. The problem is the 800 HP of instant transfuses it receives if 4 queens are the first thing about of the Nydus. Compare that with if roaches are the first things out, the Nydus can simply die and only 4 roaches escape.
Uh, that's exactly what they said they'll do if they think there is a problem... "We can tune the delay before the units can unload after a Nydus Worm finishes constructing" which means less burst healing.
On October 23 2015 03:23 BlackCompany wrote:
So liberator range on fusion core will be as useful as medivac upgrade on starport techlab? Or is it viable in LotV to get the fusion core that much faster than usual to make this upgrade count?
Liberators seem strong enough (at least vs Protoss) that it's worth getting the upgrade, of course how fast it's worth getting depends on how the metagame settles once the game has been more figured out. I assume they'll still have decent range pre-upgrade so they aren't useless.
|
I am ok with having an upgrade for the liberator, but at fusion core seems to far away in the techtree, which is not a good thing. 
Edit: I am a zerg player.
|
As we often point out, it’s not as helpful for us when you give extreme feedback such as “this will never work no matter what, and it has to be completely removed from the game.” I’m sure many of you out there have seen plenty of times throughout this beta process that issues are rarely this extreme.
When you completely disagree with it from a design perspective it IS helpful; unless you don't care if the players think the game is badly designed.
Being able to instantly siege anywhere on the map removes all the positional aspects of tank play (mostly in tvt because you can't afford that many medivacs outside of marine tank play)
Disliking this is completely legit and has nothing to do with "to extreme feedback".
You may be able to balance this well but I know that I will always hate flying siege tanks.
|
Why not just up the Nydus Worm health to something beyond what workers can easily kill off?
With an invincible Nydus Worm I'm surprised Zergs haven't used it yet to block off ramps or something akin to a Force Field.
Just up the health enough so that 2-3 workers can't just run up to it and kill it.
|
Ultras and parasitic bomb change?... nope, another week of the same shit.
|
A lot of people dont think the adept is in a good position right now which is why they are taking away one of their two nerfs to the adepts
|
I like invulnerable nydus because it foreces an opponent to build army. If i c that my opponent just sitting behind the wall with no army I make nydus and get easy win. I agree that current state is too OP and it will be good to make delay before units come out from nydus. But I think delay must be as short as not to let workers to kill nydus. Opponent must have an army to kill it. So another option to fix nydus is to give armor and remove invulnerability, so workers can't still kill worm but any big army can.
|
Well, when Dustin Browder was in charge at least they were more preoccupied with buffing and nerfing the rocks instead of introducing, rage inducing, nonsense making, buffs/nerfs
I don't know what to say, the whole thing since beta start looks like a futile attempt to fine cut a diamond with a sledgehammer ... and there are less than 3 weeks remaining till release.
Also, still no mention of parasitic bomb ...
|
The Lurker nerf is bad, it kills ZvZ and it makes ZvP a back to mass stalkers
|
Is the lurker thing about the "general timing" of lurker ZvP play, or has there popped up a "timing attack" I'm not aware of?
Because in the first case I greatly disagree with lengthening the lurker den build time even more. But I guess everything fun for zerg should go to T3ish tech, so that then they wonder when it's always mass roach and "stale metagame" complaints for years.
|
On October 23 2015 03:38 Thezzy wrote:
Why not just up the Nydus Worm health to something beyond what workers can easily kill off?
With an invincible Nydus Worm I'm surprised Zergs haven't used it yet to block off ramps or something akin to a Force Field.
Just up the health enough so that 2-3 workers can't just run up to it and kill it.
This. Just give it some amor or/ and health. There is no counterplay until the nydus is up, thats just plain stupid.
Yes you can move your units into position and be ready, but its just so much effort for the defender and no pressure what so ever for the aggressor, -which is weird. Ofcourse it would be great that nydus has its rightfull place in the arsenal of zerg,
but that way it just feels to be "cheap" (,that beeing said as a zerg if that matters). Whatever, we don´t have anything to say anyway.
|
On October 23 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
Is the lurker thing about the "general timing" of lurker ZvP play, or has there popped up a "timing attack" I'm not aware of?
Because in the first case I greatly disagree with lengthening the lurker den build time even more. But I guess everything fun for zerg should go to T3ish tech, so that then they wonder when it's always mass roach and "stale metagame" complaints for years.
There are rush lurkers builds but optimal builds are not out yet so they look OP
But in a macro game its terrible
Lurkers are hard to get and used, back to Roach vs Roach and blink stalkers being used in mass
If anything they could have helped Disruptors come out faster and lower their damage.
5 Disruptors hard counters Lurkers very hard
|
On October 23 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
Is the lurker thing about the "general timing" of lurker ZvP play, or has there popped up a "timing attack" I'm not aware of?
Because in the first case I greatly disagree with lengthening the lurker den build time even more. But I guess everything fun for zerg should go to T3ish tech, so that then they wonder when it's always mass roach and "stale metagame" complaints for years.
I fear this could lead right back to hots style full blink bs.
|
On October 23 2015 03:45 HomeWorld wrote:
Well, when Dustin Browder was in charge at least they were more preoccupied with buffing and nerfing the rocks instead of introducing, rage inducing, nonsense making, buffs/nerfs
I don't know what to say, the whole thing since beta start looks like a futile attempt to fine cut a diamond with a sledgehammer ... and there are less than 3 weeks remaining till release.
Also, still no mention of parasitic bomb ...
Rocks > Community Update
|
Making new extra rules, just makes the game overly complicated. I miss clean design from BW and WOL. Even HOTS has cleaner design:
I can already see the next patch:
+ Show Spoiler +Snipe adjusted: snipe does a^2 + b^2 amount of dmg where a is the distance *2+4 and b is the unit type value: armored 10 light 5 anything else 3.75939. This applies to everything except for psionic units where a the equation e^{i x} = \cos x + i \sin x is used instead
|
I agree a lot with the update and changes. As a terran player, I am completely fine with the liberator change. It still is relative to use and powerful even with the range nerf because it can be attained in the late game.
Personally, I don't think the seige tank drop is necessary to have because it really messed up the game in TvT. I don't like to play it. However, it does help to save siege tanks from good micro. But I just wish there was a better way.
Also, I think the photon overcharge should be changed to more energy, so that it won't be spammed so much especially in the early game not so much in the late game. Protoss should have some sort of defense for their expansions, but not something that completely gives them an easy way to do it without a way to punish them.
The nydus worm being untargetable until it pops can be a little op because that fact that even when you see and are prepared to kill it, the queens are able to heal it up and pretty much means GG for the terran especially. I suggest just to make it a longer time somehow to develop the nydus worm.
Additionally, the only thing I was wanting to hear was the parasitic bomb. I truly believe that this is overpowered in the fact that it can stack meaning if you don't have the skill and micro to split your air units fast enough then all the air units die almost instantly. I hope Blizzard could give a huge green mark on the air unit that has the parasitic bomb activated on just like the ravens seeker missile that radiates red on the unit being targeted on. This would at least help distinguish when one to split easier because it is already hard itself.
Honestly, though thank you for the good updates. Good work.
|
Holy fuck this is going to be a gigantic nerf to Liberators, lol! Damn ... They needed a nerf, but in the context of a nerf to Carriers and Vipers. They specifically mentioned the Carrier's problem ability--release interceptors--so lets see if they address it in the update.
No mention of parasitic bomb ... Seems if Liberator and Carrier are getting nerfed they should also tone back Zerg's incredibly good air army.
|
On October 23 2015 04:07 TimeSpiral wrote:
Holy fuck this is going to be a gigantic nerf to Liberators, lol! Damn ... They needed a nerf, but in the context of a nerf to Carriers and Vipers. They specifically mentioned the Carrier's problem ability--release interceptors--so lets see if they address it in the update.
No mention of parasitic bomb ... Seems if Liberator and Carrier are getting nerfed they should also tone back Zerg's incredibly good air army.
Seems like they have created a huge problem with every air unit being near broken to combat the other near broken air units...
|
Surprisingly, those all seem to be decent possible changes...the liberator one in particular i've seen people suggest on forums and that seems like a really good idea.
Uh, nydus worms....yeah...uh yeah just because people aren't abusing the fact they can get a freewin yet...doesn't mean they won't when tourneys start and people get freewins with it. Dunno how a 1 sec delay or 2 sec delay will stop queens from transfusing this thing into infinity. Me personally, i like the HOTS version because it has definitive counter-play - you see it, you can kill it. Just as it should be. Not this horse shit of "i need X amount of units here or this thing is going to fuck me."
Carriers, yep they're OP. Nerf.
Adepts...buff? No thank you...not looking forward to more of this non-sense. I still think adepts are too strong right now in the current patch with their perma stim. They basically replace zealots 100%.
WHY NO MENTION OF PARASITIC BULLSHIT BOMB. SERIOUSLY? What is their attachment to this bullshit ability being in the game? It's stackable, instant cast like the old INSTA AMAZING FUNGAL, and has absolutely no counter play in late game once there's 6+ vipers.
Please just remove parasitic bomb. I know they don't wnat "extreme feedback" but this is feedback from experience accumulated across the entire beta. Parasitic bomb is one of the most bullshit abilities i have ever seen in SC2, rivalling the archon toilet/insta fungal of old. Remove that shit.
|
Surprised they feel the need to buff adepts.. already such a strong unit
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Carrier
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. We’ve been trying various changes, and we wonder if just a straight up Carrier health nerf is a decent way to go.
Kidding? That's insane. It needed a power nerf in the first place - why are we fucking around with the build time?
That was never the problem. Now we'll have a ridiculous long build time forever.
|
The changes are good except the lurker nerf, its pretty bad.
|
Good update, especially on the liberators topic. Nice.
|
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 04:34 ondik wrote:
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly?
They overbuffed it so that it was OP early and bad lategame. Then they nerfed it so it's kinda bad at all stages
|
Might actually be worth building adepts again
|
On October 23 2015 04:34 ondik wrote:
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly?
They buffed it a lot, and now they have gradually nerfed them down patch by patch.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 04:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:34 ondik wrote:
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly? They buffed it a lot, and now they have gradually nerfed them down patch by patch.
It was mostly on one patch really - they nerfed its base HP by 30 (when reworking the upgrade) and then 10 more like a week later
|
On October 23 2015 04:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:34 ondik wrote:
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly? They buffed it a lot, and now they have gradually nerfed them down patch by patch.
If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game.
|
On October 23 2015 04:41 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:40 Big J wrote:On October 23 2015 04:34 ondik wrote:
As someone who doesn't follow the beta too much - in the beginning everyone was complaining about Adept being a weak and useless unit. Now I see people complain about it being too strong. Did they buff it that much, or did people learn how to use it properly? They buffed it a lot, and now they have gradually nerfed them down patch by patch. It was mostly on one patch really - they nerfed its base HP by 30 (when reworking the upgrade) and then 10 more like a week later
Yeah true. I'm, probably mixing it up in my head because of the 100ths form of warpgate and chronoboost being also gradual nerfs to adept rushes, but not to the unit itself.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game.
The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially.
They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too.
|
On October 23 2015 04:30 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Carrier
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. We’ve been trying various changes, and we wonder if just a straight up Carrier health nerf is a decent way to go. Kidding? That's insane. It needed a power nerf in the first place - why are we fucking around with the build time? That was never the problem. Now we'll have a ridiculous long build time forever.
Yeah I thought more people was gonna react on this as well.
We want a useful carrier that is possible to get, not a carrier that is op but impossible to get.
|
On October 23 2015 04:47 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game. The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially. They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too.
Their strong in all ins.
Disruptors to need a nerf to damage, they 1 shots so many units is very dumb
|
On October 23 2015 04:47 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game. The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially. They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too.
Your attempts to make this Warhound 2.0 reincarnation look as a workable with unit design is laughable.
Ppl who haven't dealt with you in the past might actually take you seriously ...
|
The underlying reason that Nydus Worm plays are uncommon can be due to "Survivorship Bias" - the game ends before zerg players deploys Nydus Worm (they either lose the game before they can utilize Nydus Worm or they defeat their opponent without using Nydus Worm). In the games that involve late game units, the reason that Nydus Worm is rarely used can be that units like 8-armored Ultralisks, Vipers, and Broodlords are powerful enough to win the game. Therefore, the reason that one rarely see Nydus Worm in the game is not because it is weak (qualified for buff), but because IT IS REPLACEABLE / OVERSHADOW BY OTHER STRATEGIES. That is something the team should think of.
Their concern of Nydus Worm brings up an earlier balance change to me: since Zealots were overshadowed by Adepts and players included more Adepts than Zealots in their armies, the team decided to BUFF ZEALOTS so that they could be competitive to Adepts. We all know how things turned out after this. After nerfing the charge damage, Adepts were nerfed significantly and eventually the role of Adepts changed.
One take-home message: "survivorship bias" can lead to overbuffing or overnerfing.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 04:56 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:47 Cyro wrote:If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game. The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially. They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too. Your attempts to make this Warhound 2.0 reincarnation look as a workable with unit design is laughable. Ppl who haven't dealt with you in the past might actually take you seriously ...
Warhounds beat every unit cost effectively at every stage of the game. Adepts never did - they were extremely powerful early, extremely weak late - but only explicitly broken during the warp prism warpgate timing
|
Remove parasitic bomb and give zerg scourge. The baneling is a great unit because it leads to great micro and big moments for viewers, scourge can be the same. May as well remove infestors at the same time.
|
Nothing about the 8armor ultras/cyclones?
|
On October 23 2015 05:06 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:56 HomeWorld wrote:On October 23 2015 04:47 Cyro wrote:If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game. The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially. They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too. Your attempts to make this Warhound 2.0 reincarnation look as a workable with unit design is laughable. Ppl who haven't dealt with you in the past might actually take you seriously ... Warhounds beat every unit cost effectively at every stage of the game. Adepts never did - they were extremely powerful early, extremely weak late - but only explicitly broken during the warp prism warpgate timing
Adepts are way too cost efficient, until late game where having adepts doesn't make sense, why would someone still sane enough use adepts instead of something more efficient than carriers/tempests/storms ?
What you fail to grasp is that abusing adepts in early/mid game allows a far easier late game transition into air (if the opponent even survives till then).
|
On October 23 2015 05:06 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:56 HomeWorld wrote:On October 23 2015 04:47 Cyro wrote:If the attack speed increase is a nerf , then by God, I think we're talking about a different game. The 40 base HP was a huge nerf to their strong areas in the game; they used to compete well against roaches, marauders, stalkers and widow mines were awful against them. It made them lose to those units and get 1shot by widow mines. This is before the upgrade comes into play, especially. They were never strong vs standard MMM/Liberator/Ghost and they're not now, but now they're much weaker early game too. Your attempts to make this Warhound 2.0 reincarnation look as a workable with unit design is laughable. Ppl who haven't dealt with you in the past might actually take you seriously ... Warhounds beat every unit cost effectively at every stage of the game. Adepts never did - they were extremely powerful early, extremely weak late - but only explicitly broken during the warp prism warpgate timing
Don't care how many Warhounds you had - I could beat them with 1 banshee. So EVERY unit??
Adepts were nerfed for a damn good reason - the most broken unit to enter the game since the warhound. They need to be super careful about buffing it or low-skill protoss players will be back to mass adept bullshit again.
Upset we are still not targeting the Nydus worm with a change this patch and still not addressing the PB.
|
At least their reasonings and argumentation kinda makes sense this time, which I find reassuring. But damn, someone needs to buy those guys an Occam razor. Such convoluted, intricate, uselessly complicated ways of designing the game... Nothing clean, simple or elegant.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
until late game where having adepts doesn't make sense, why would someone still sane enough use adepts
Why would a sane terran use marine/marauder/medivac in the stage that adepts became worthless? Because they were better units.
Adepts were nerfed for a damn good reason - the most broken unit to enter the game since the warhound.
Super powerful early game, super useless later. That was always an issue.
|
I'm fine with the adept buff as a Terran, they're not scary at all midgame currently and allins are very doable to defend instead of broken as fuck. If it turns out they become too scary again, they can always be nerfed.
I'd really like them to adress the nydus worm asap, it doesn't take a genius to see it's not a good idea.
|
holy fucking shit i'm such an idiot, sorry very sleep deprived atm, meant to edit typos
|
holy fucking shit i'm such an idiot, sorry very sleep deprived atm
|
Yay I was just mentioning yesterday how I think liberators were too strong with their AtG and how carriers seemed too strong still.
PO is meh, will help zerg that dont want to LMB, T and PvP I guess.
I still think tanks that are picked up in siege mode should be dropped unsieged. That would solve a lot of nonsense.
|
They should revert the carrier build time and do this nerf instead. These double nerfs are getting rediculous.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 05:50 Beliskner wrote:
They should revert the carrier build time and do this nerf instead. These double nerfs are getting rediculous.
Build time was never the problem, they have an issue particularly with the random new release interceptor mechanic (which i have always hated) and if not that, then the supply/cost efficiency of carriers. I think their combat ability is completely fine without the BS that release interceptor does, and the new build time with nerfed chrono is beyond ridiculous.
Seriously, you can build 16 liberators, 8 tempests or 4 carriers. Why are carriers some crazy exception that have to build 1.5 - 2.0x slower than every other capital unit?
It's so bad that you can destroy a player trying to carrier transition in pvp stargate mirror by just spamming so many phoenix and killing all of the interceptors.
|
Good change on the Liberator.
Some usefull changes:
Remove colossus (add dark archon for example).
Remove invencibility and add armor to Nydus.
Remove release interceptors, add armour to carriers.
Small buff to BCs and Brood Lords speed.
Reduce at least 1 hit point do Ultras armour.
Replace charge with legs, for the Zealot.
Replace stasis ward with statis field, for the Oracle.
Remove thor, add goliath.
Remove cyclone, add diamondback.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Some usefull changes:
Remove colossus
Is colossus used in any matchup at the moment?
|
On October 23 2015 06:08 Cyro wrote:Is colossus used in any matchup at the moment?
As a master toss, I don't think so, and I think everyone hates the units..plying with or against it.
|
Lurker timing
Could be true, could not be, I think nerfing this unit at all before the game releases is not the best of moves, and it already takes forever to get, I feel a more elegant change could have been implemented, like decreasing the health or slightly lowering damage to armored units, it's just getting the Carrier treatment.
Liberator
Probably the best change they could have done, I like this, being able to shut down mineral lines and force Ravagers is retarded as hell, this is a surprisingly good move in my opinion, Terran players obviously aren't going to like it but beyond that it's a sensible nerf to an obviously OP unit.
Fusion core though, not too sure..Maybe make it expensive and available at tech lab? That alone should give enough time to set up suitable counter play.
Carrier
Just flat out not a fan of the first change, it should have just been made less powerful, not less accessible, not sure what the balance teams obsession with units that steamroll anything once there is more then 3 of them.
Siege Tank Medivac drop
Horribly disappointed by this, this is such a glaringly gimmicky mechanic that it's just painful to witness and is one of those "OP if not nerfed but UP if nerfed at all" things that the balance team is going to have a love affair with for a long time before community outrage forces them to nerf it into oblivion, this is going to straight up break TvT in the Korean scene.
This idea should be scrapped and the siege tank needs to get 60 flat damage back, the Tank is meant to secure a location, not be drop ship micro managed. Seriously, putting the Siege upgrade back in with 60 flat damage will be a huge buff to mech and will ya know, allow the Siege Tank to not SUCK ASS at it's main role.
Adept
Whatever, it was probably over nerfed (and I'm a Zerg that hates Adepts and their meaty tankiness) so pretty meh but a good move.
Photon Overcharge
It's definitely too spammable, but Protoss seems to be in kind of a "fragile but stabile" state right now in terms of engaging against Zerg in straight up macro games, it's spammable but I don't know, further testing is probably a good idea, the stupid rushes are annoying but they can be held reasonably with Queens and a spine or two.
Nydus Worm
Again, the all or nothing approach is something I'm just not too fond of, if workers being able to focus it down is the issue your going to bring up, why not buff the health or give it +2 armor or make it able to be cancelled? What logic is it to make it invulnerable because previously workers could kill it? Totally lost on their approach to this.
Automated Tournament schedule
These are going to be cool I think, just gotta wait until release, it's obviously going to kinda suck for a bit with 1/2 the population of players still playing HOTS.
Also, no Infestor changes still? I thought the Cyclone wasn't even great by their own admission with the last update so, wheres the news on that? The unit is still just super lame.
|
On October 23 2015 06:12 StarscreamG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 06:08 Cyro wrote:Some usefull changes:
Remove colossus Is colossus used in any matchup at the moment? As a master toss, I don't think so, and I think everyone hates the units..plying with or against it.
As a Zerg I feel the Disruptor is 10X cooler to play against then the Colossus, it at least let's Protoss players show off some skill.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 06:17 jpg06051992 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 06:12 StarscreamG1 wrote:On October 23 2015 06:08 Cyro wrote:Some usefull changes:
Remove colossus Is colossus used in any matchup at the moment? As a master toss, I don't think so, and I think everyone hates the units..plying with or against it. As a Zerg I feel the Disruptor is 10X cooler to play against then the Colossus, it at least let's Protoss players show off some skill.
I feel so too, but feel pretty weak without using disruptors or carriers - and it's really awkward to play carriers with this build time and no chrono
|
|
|
Maybe they should remove smart-fire on interceptors? It would make carriers less useful in large numbers but still usable in smaller engagements.
On the nydus, I think they should just add 2 or 3 armour to it if they want workers to stop killing it so fast.
|
|
|
As we often point out, it’s not as helpful for us when you give extreme feedback such as “this will never work no matter what, and it has to be completely removed from the game.” I’m sure many of you out there have seen plenty of times throughout this beta process that issues are rarely this extreme.
It's not "extremely" problematic to have the tank drops so this is right in that regard, but it's reasonable to take an absolute stance if we will %100 miss the old tank no matter how well the new one is executed.
BW tanks are one of the coolest things in any RTS and I hate to see SC2 go even further from that.
|
A different actually opposite approach to the Nydus that might be interesting would be:
Increase HP to 850, same HP as Nydus Network, but then have it act like any other building in the game when you start it.
It starts at 10% = 85 hp and then goes towards 850. Armor doesn't go into effect before the building is done.
So the slower you react, the stronger the Nydus. If you act real fast, it probably dies as quickly as normal HotS Nydus. But instead of increasing the '' I'm gonna build a Nydus IN YO' FACE '' survivability, we increase the survivability of unnoticed/too much shit is going on.
This would buff the Zergs that harass simply everywhere at once and totally outmultitasks you, while actually not having your entire army be in danger, because there's less fear of the Nydus Worm getting targeted down instantly.
Could also make it cancellable like any other building.
|
The reason tournaments are currently held every 3 hours in the beta, and the reason why we don’t just start a tournament when the first 8 or 16 players sign up, is because we want automated tournaments to be a competitive experience no matter what skill level you are playing at. For example, if we were to go with the somewhat popular suggestion of having tournaments up all the time, and we just initiate tournaments every time we have enough players, the skill of players in that tournament will potentially range from Bronze to Grand Master.
Euh i am pretty sure people don't want to start a tournament as soon as you have 8 players, but rather start if as soon as you have 8 players of your mmr range. I think that part is quite obvious, no?
I understand that sc2 isn't the most played game, but even then this should be no problem.
As we often point out, it’s not as helpful for us when you give extreme feedback such as “this will never work no matter what, and it has to be completely removed from the game.” I’m sure many of you out there have seen plenty of times throughout this beta process that issues are rarely this extreme.
The problem is not a balance one, the point is that siege tanks should be strong when you get in position and weak if they don't. With the current medivac implementation the positioning gets trivial and tanks still largely 'suck' on their own.
It's gimmicky, that is the problem here.
We hear your feedback that the Nydus Worm all-ins can seem nearly unstoppable. At the same time, we haven’t actually seen this strategy in used often enough to make conclusive decisions. We’re not saying we disagree with your feedback, but rather that we want to be careful with nerfs that could be premature overreactions
Giving the nydus worm invincibility is simply bad design. Most people knew it from the get go, but just watch this: http://www.twitch.tv/basetradetv/v/20808178?t=1h49m34s
TBH, nydus worm's role shouldn't be to allin in the enemy base, that design choice makes for bad gameplay. Rethink the role of the nydus and if it has a place in the game. Give zerg usable drops instead of this all or nothing unit.
We agree this is an issue in PvZ, and are currently looking at increasing the build time on the Lurker Den. However, we don’t want to go too heavy with this nerf because our upcoming Adept buff naturally means that Zerg teching will be slowed down a bit as well. We are aiming to get a change in for this for tomorrow’s balance update.
I personally dislike the idea of increasing the build time of the den because i would love to see lurkers become a core unit in every matchup. Atm it is already pretty hard to get to lurkers most of the time imo.
The goal of Photon Overcharge is to allow Protoss players to control specific locations in a powerful, defensive way so that Protoss can keep up with expansions. We believe this is important because of the resource changes, but we do agree that its current raw strength and spammable nature might be an issue.
I still think photon overcharge should not be in the game (one click abilities which defend you aren't starcraft imo) but sure increasing the energy to 50 might make it more startegic to use, that's a positive.
|
Kinda wish Lurkers would deal +damage to bio or light instead of armored. That way they might become better in zvt and worse in zvp, exactly what is needed.
Nerfing carriers/lurkers through build time is bad imo. Nerfing the unit stats is almost always better.
Other than that, more steps in the right direction.
|
Pylon Overcharge is completely stupid. Scouting Overlords get sniped with that shit, so yes its really spammable. Also being able to defend with only pylons is just ridiculus. You dont have units or static defense at your base? You should be punished for that, not rely on your auto-defend button aka overcharge to magically save the day. Honestly, why should I attack a defenseless base early game if a couple of pylons can wreck my hit squad?
I demand equality for all Zergs, we should have an ability called "the creep is lava" which burns all enemy units on creep and can be activated by any queen on creep, after all i want to defend my bases without having to defend my bases.
|
Everyone gets nerfed....adepts however, get buffed...
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 23 2015 07:39 Nam_Pho_life wrote:
Everyone gets nerfed....adepts however, get buffed...
Because they were overnerfed
|
Most of these changes are fine, but couldn't they nerf lurker in a way other than increasing the build time of Lurker Den? It's already damn long.
|
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.
Someone needed to point out the idiocy of their pseudo-smart approach to balance by being infinitely open-minded to bad ideas. This covers that okay
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
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.
Where is that proof? I like you SGTK, but spouting bullshit like that is just hate posting. I firmly believe they spent quite a bit of time thinking about LOTV economy in the pre-Alpha stages of the game. They would have had to in order to move forward with the planning of everything else in the game.
|
The reason why I don't play the beta is that there's no way to play team matches and there's no custom games. It's just quick match. If you included that, I'm sure there wouldn't be such a low population. However, with the game cumming out next month, I don't care too much about the beta and am just looking forward to the game itself.
|
I don't agree with nerfing Lurkers. The interactions the unit bring are way too interesting, in this case it's really just a skill-related issue.
Same goes with siege drops, though they might be too easy to execute due to SC2's simplified UI.
|
Changes are still on the right path
Pylon Overcharge is too cheap, it should be 50 energy minimum. Hopefully that gets fixed soon.
Liberator change seems alright if they allow it to attack ground right away
TvAdepts will continue to be really boring -- I should clarify, Adept based Protoss all-ins are really strong combined with whatever Protoss chooses to add (void rays, immortal, pylon overcharge rush)
Parasitic Bomb needs to be changed/nerfed/removed
Terran doesnt seem to have a counter to the Ultralisk at this point (if it does, please let me know so I can try it b/c it sure isnt marauders and cyclones lol)
|
On October 23 2015 09:00 NKexquisite wrote:
Changes are still on the right path
Pylon Overcharge is too cheap, it should be 50 energy minimum. Hopefully that gets fixed soon.
Liberator change seems alright if they allow it to attack ground right away
TvAdepts will continue to be really boring -- I should clarify, Adept based Protoss all-ins are really strong combined with whatever Protoss chooses to add (void rays, immortal, pylon overcharge rush)
Parasitic Bomb needs to be changed/nerfed/removed
Terran doesnt seem to have a counter to the Ultralisk at this point (if it does, please let me know so I can try it b/c it sure isnt marauders and cyclones lol)
Tried the new ghost snipe ability?
|
Carrier is such a problematic dull unit, I wish we would look past bw and just remove it all together.
|
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.
|
Completely give up on the idea of the siege tank pick up ability. The siege tank should not be a mobile harassment unit. It should be a high damage immobile powerhouse.
This is a painful analogy, but basically, the siege tank should be the fucking current Liberator.
|
I'd be down to see a 3 second delay on Tankivac firing, at least it gives players time to react, pickup, micro, counter-play etc.
Photon overcharge being 50 energy or having a cooldown on ability would be nice to see more flexibility and viable aggression in terran openings vs toss.
Love the idea of the liberator change. The unit is very hard to incorporate into an early timing or build before late game due to the current upgrade (tech lab, 79 second upgrade etc). This seems like a great way to tweak the unit and give it back strength throughout the endgame.
As for nydus, I feel like it just shouldn't be able to be transfused. If they changed that aspect of the worm I think all my other issues with it are negated.
|
The troll....
I’m sure many of you out there have seen plenty of times throughout this beta process that issues are rarely this extreme.
|
I just hope they adress how P is getting utterly destroyed in high level PvZ.
|
On October 23 2015 03:11 Thomasmarkle wrote:
you know... I know a lot of people complain about how the balance process has been going throughout the beta, but it is awesome that they at least have been letting us know what their thought process is on a lot of the issues. Sure they may not address them immediately, but the fact that they are taking initiative in reading everything players are talking about is a huge step in the right direction for every one. Bravo!
Upper management probably realized that the work of balancing the game was poorly handle up until now.
Hopefully they won't take a whole expansion to fix something that never really worked out (I.E old SH)
|
I think this is good, they're addressing some issues, and watching some others. No mention of ultralisk/cyclone but definitely seems more P and Z focused.
I like the idea of the carrier retaining strength but being more fragile, it will make micro more important.
Pylon overcharge sounds like a decent enough compromise.
Liberator idea seems good, it will be a harassment unit to catch the opponent off guard in early timings. I imagine the strength will fall off a lot mid game but will serve as a good aoe splash unit still (TvZ). The range upgrade would fit in well when teching to late game sky terran also.
Delaying siege tank fire when dropped a little more would be good. Though it isn't unstoppable in TvT early if you're scouting and taking a viking, worst case is you'll lose some scvs. I think delaying the shot would offer a bit more defenders advantage to the defender. Makes sense.
Adept change seems fine, WP adept play isn't anywhere near as bad as it was last month. Though I hope it doesn't effect the mid to late game too much.
And the Nydus. I'd rather see it delayed, or without transfuse. But I can get behind the timing window. It means that the player is presented with a test, react and be prepared, and profit. The Zerg will have to make more intelligent choices as to where to position it, and the reacting player gets rewarded for responding correctly, or punished for not. Sounds like better game design than the current form.
Looking forward to when they get to Ultralisks, god damn.
|
On October 23 2015 03:12 purakushi wrote:
nydus worm:
-remove invincibility
-when placed on creep, costs less and no global sound
-when placed off creep, costs more and has global sound
-balance is just numbers
please.
Just make creep a MUST for it in order to pop out. If zerg still wants to go all-in, an overlord must drop some creep in the enemy's base first, and that certainly makes it stoppable.
|
Getting SGall feedback and will probably summarize and post after I wake up
|
Please dont nerf carrier.. its the only viaable solid build for protoss. Bring back the fast build time, just remove the release interceptor so it can still be countered :/
|
On October 23 2015 14:18 shin_toss wrote:
Please dont nerf carrier.. its the only viaable solid build for protoss. Bring back the fast build time, just remove the release interceptor so it can still be countered :/
This thought process.
So instead of nerfing the Carrier and then, eventually, buffing other Protoss shit to make up for this nerf when the winrate plummets below 50%, you would rather keep A+move Carriers as a super powerful "composition," and then FORCE PROTOSS TO RELY ON IT AS A CRUTCH. I can't even wrap my mind around how short-sighted your suggestion is.
Just to clarify, for how many years of LotV would you like Protoss to have a shitty midgame and be forced to tech straight to Carriers? One year? Two years? The rest of SC2's lifespan?
(I'm assuming that Protoss midgame is weak; what I've seen on Ryung's stream suggests otherwise, but for the sake of argument let's grant that you're right.)
|
Well this sounds ridiculous any way you look at it really... =p
|
Thanks Blizz for your support! DO NOT LISTEN TO THE WHINING emanating from these posts, but instead try to read between the rows.Most of the people here are frustrated and too tunnel visioned, but others do point out VERY GOOD IDEAS and possible ways to go for making LotV great!
Please filter the good and constructive posts from the bullshit that other users write here.Patience comes a long way, but at the end will only bring good things!
CHEERS!!
|
On October 23 2015 08:44 CheeseCakez0 wrote:
The reason why I don't play the beta is that there's no way to play team matches and there's no custom games. It's just quick match. If you included that, I'm sure there wouldn't be such a low population. However, with the game cumming out next month, I don't care too much about the beta and am just looking forward to the game itself. Ehm, you do have custom games in the Beta... Just not the arcade.
|
On October 23 2015 15:15 x0x0 wrote:
Thanks Blizz for your support! DO NOT LISTEN TO THE WHINING emanating from these posts, but instead try to read between the rows.Most of the people here are frustrated and too tunnel visioned, but others do point out VERY GOOD IDEAS and possible ways to go for making LotV great!
Please filter the good and constructive posts from the bullshit that other users write here.Patience comes a long way, but at the end will only bring good things!
CHEERS!!
Unfortunately, they are doing the opposite. They are filtering the bullshit from the good ideas.
|
surprisingly lucid when compared to the incoherent gibberish they used to write in most of these, but probably too little too late
i really like the liberator idea though
|
I feel the siege tank drop being nerfed to the ground with a hilariously long first attack delay. I feel it in my tired old terran bones
|
how the hell did they not adress ultras armor vs T and parasitic bomb.
|
why so much hate? even as a hardcore balance whiner i feel like blizzard is trying really hard this time to even out balanc between the races.
or maybe it's a good sign when every race is balance whining?
anyway good job blizzard i think you're doing the best you can atm.
|
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.
It's hopeless :,(
|
On October 23 2015 16:43 Noonius wrote:
I feel the siege tank drop being nerfed to the ground with a hilariously long first attack delay. I feel it in my tired old terran bones
The fun part is that it would probably be a shorter delay if they just dropped unsieged and then you had to siege it manually xD
|
On October 23 2015 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 14:18 shin_toss wrote:
Please dont nerf carrier.. its the only viaable solid build for protoss. Bring back the fast build time, just remove the release interceptor so it can still be countered :/ This thought process. So instead of nerfing the Carrier and then, eventually, buffing other Protoss shit to make up for this nerf when the winrate plummets below 50%, you would rather keep A+move Carriers as a super powerful "composition," and then FORCE PROTOSS TO RELY ON IT AS A CRUTCH. I can't even wrap my mind around how short-sighted your suggestion is. Just to clarify, for how many years of LotV would you like Protoss to have a shitty midgame and be forced to tech straight to Carriers? One year? Two years? The rest of SC2's lifespan? (I'm assuming that Protoss midgame is weak; what I've seen on Ryung's stream suggests otherwise, but for the sake of argument let's grant that you're right.)
They already re-buffing the adept. No one is forcing you to go Carriers all the time, the point is to make it useable like Broodlords. The super long build time + shitty dps (unless you hit critical mass) makes it a dead unit in the game like BC.
So.. how many years protoss is just stucked with deathball? so.. protoss air are only for harrasment? its a core unit in the lategame and its not bad idea to incorporate it with ground units in the late mid game
its better than to have a super expensive and super long time to build unit that wiill just die in just seconds.
|
I think the problem of the Carrier is that it doesnt really have a role. It is not a tank, its not a siege unit or a support unit or a harassment unit or anthing. Its just very expensive and very powerful. You may say that THIS IS a role, but I disagree. Its just bad design in my opinion.
|
increasing the build time on the Lurker Den.
Thats literally the worst thing that you can do. Teching to Lurkers is already too long and Zerg needs a core midgame unit!
|
Is there actually an aggregated overview where you can see all currently implemented changes from the community updates? I can't seem to find good information what the exact state on things is, for example build times, costs, and so on. Espescially regardings units or abilities that are beeing changed a lot.
|
I don't understand why they don't want to remove the release interceptors thing. It's been problematic since it was introduced.
|
I actually like par of what they did with the drop tank, especially the pick-up part when you can save your tanks, the dropping part is meh. Still, it's a far better idea than a straight up buff to tank's damage which is absolutely not needed except for TvP.
|
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.
|
Ultras are now way too powerful because armor buff and marauders attack nerf.
I hope they will keep siege tanks drop and not a huge nerf like a big delay between the moment the tank is dropped and the moment it shoots
|
i wish they would just leave the tank and medivac alone.. the new liberator change might be interesting and actually a buff and i dont know why they havnt even tried a bit of an ultra nerf. overall things are looking pretty decent balance wise for release
|
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.
|
Bisutopia19214 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."
|
Bisutopia19214 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
|
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 Kingdom20282 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 Kingdom20282 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.
|
On October 24 2015 06:43 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote: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)
so you just produce two colossi and amove over the T. I think everyone understands your pov now at least.
|
sounds to me like they are nerfing several air units... and i like that move.
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.
you need a long giant block of time and large block of resources to alter the economy model. if that block of time and block of resources is not there then the economy model underlying every other activity in the game can not change.
DK and Sigaty stated they would revisit a substantial alteration to macro mechanics after the game is released and the crunch around product release is over.
relative to all the other options i have within the RTS genre i'm satisfied with the resources Blizzard has devoted to SC2 in general and LotV in particular.
if CoH2 or AoA or C&CGens or RA3 were better options i'd be playing them.
|
On October 24 2015 06:43 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote: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)
Please. Unless you're referring to the Medivac as part of Bio's upgrades, this claim has BS written all over it. And that's not like you, Cyro!
|
|
|
On October 24 2015 02:59 TimeSpiral wrote:
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.
Which everyone agrees was a good move. Then people figured out this also allowed to turn tanks from positional units into hyper mobile harass tools, which never was the intention. The way to shut this down is obvious and elegant, but instead it's treated as an "interesting interaction" even though it both completely contradicts the tanks identity and introduces even more volatility into the game.
On October 24 2015 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote:
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...
Yeah, I realized there is a lot of common ground with the Liberator, but not entirely:
- Carriers can move while Interceptors are deployed
- Interceptors can be shot down
- No deploy time on interceptors except their movement time
- With deployment on cooldown, Carriers are completely defenseless on their own
Still, I think the concept fits the Carrier much more naturally than the Liberator. And with this many units there probably are bound to be similar abilities ...
|
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?
Hehe I would love this. But realistically it makes sense that gateway should lose to bio+ medivacs when on even attack/armor since the medivacs add alot to the gas cost of the army.
I would like it however, if they could win again vs bio without medivacs.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On October 24 2015 07:20 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 06:43 Cyro wrote:On October 24 2015 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote: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) so you just produce two colossi and amove over the T. I think everyone understands your pov now at least.
That's why you remove the WOL colossus from the game because literally almost nobody who understands the situation wants that unit to exist. T/Z almost universally hates playing against it and P hates having units and mechanics like colossus and warpgate that force their core units to be underpowered for balance to be possible.
Please. Unless you're referring to the Medivac as part of Bio's upgrades, this claim has BS written all over it. And that's not like you, Cyro!
Terran players are the only ones having a problem with me for having a bunch of very valid, evidence backed opinions. I've played the game for 5 and a half years up to master level, watched many hundreds of games and seen about 400 legacy games at high master - GM level since they removed macro mechanics, so in the later half of the beta. I usually don't even bother to say the ridiculous stuff - and that quote that i wrote is nowhere close to it.
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)
If twilight tech comes as late as medivacs then sure i want it to be competitive. If you're having fights with 100 supply on both sides, sure medivacs are gonna be there and sure twilight will if you were to play an upgraded gateway style. If terran autolost in the midgame (not just lategame) without a bunch of liberators it wouldn't be any fun, same for protoss with disruptors.
In the end if and when both players are getting near max supply and have a ton of money, sure they can build those units and there's nothing wrong with that. The midgame reliance is the thing that i have always hated - rush to 2 colossus, rush to storm or kill your opponent at 8 minutes, it's not as fun as the game could be IMO.
It was always a game of get to 2 nexus and then get colossus/storm immediately before you die - now it's the same but with 3 nexus and with another unit to replace the colossus.
|
Cyro I agree with your overall point, it's no fun to watch terran "multitask" Protoss to death when it is more because the whole Protoss army is so reliant on colossus and other AoE.
However I am completely ok for Protoss gateway to be slightly inferior than bio with medivac.
Power units are what makes Protoss vastly different than other two races (especially against terran which every bio units are equal to another)
It is why despite the initial point I stated, I still want it to remain this way, I would only reduce the dependency of these units and make them more fun (like disruptor), which I think blizzard is doing well with adepts (just need more tweaks).
Adepts offer a stronger gateway army that can buy more time for the power unit to rebuild.
Another are warp prism range pick up and the relatively stronger immortals
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
the team decided to BUFF ZEALOTS so that they could be competitive to Adepts. We all know how things turned out after this.
So this quote is 10 years ago but i feel it's important to reply.
They accidentally extremely overbuffed the zealot because of a bug and a disconnect between two internal test builds. When it was discovered, the damage was lowered to 8 instead of 30.. and since then it's been left there, because that was the original design intent.
-------------
@ETisME I agree. Still feel like some mechanics (release interceptor, power of disruptor, warpgate) can be a bit too limiting to the race, causing substantial nerfs that would otherwise not be neccesary
|
By the way, when do they revert Chronoboost back to its HotS state ?
|
Don't you guys feel that the extension is really poor for Terrans ??
Not in terms of balance, but on new things that Terrans have compare to Htos..
While Toss and Zerg seems to have completly new meta and tons of new units, terran game play is approximativly the same as before.
very disapointing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
