EPTAre Blizzard going in the right direction with recent LotV…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
LillianRomano
1 Post
| ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
| ||
|
BruMeister
United States90 Posts
On September 22 2015 05:17 tokinho wrote: decreased the cost of aoe death ball armies Like what? Are you talking about Protoss, which is the only deathball race in HOTS in true high ranking competitive play? All I have seen is a decreased cost of the disruptor, which is not a deathball unit at all since you need to use micro to use it's attack as effectively as possible while not killing your own units in a battle. On a side note, but still related, didn't they decrease colossus damage by 20%, thus making the most deathbally ground unit for that race less viable? Protoss feels much less deathbally in LOTV than HOTS, although admittedly it could still use some unit tweaks to make it less so even more. | ||
|
WhaleOFaTALE1
47 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16008 Posts
On September 21 2015 20:54 dirtydurb82 wrote: The intent is there - focus on strategy and micro, not macro mechanics. The exciting thing about this game is who had the most unique strategy and executed it, not who was able to keep building drones / probes / etc. The key is that macro decisionmaking will still be important, but the APM to make that macro happen will be reduced. Only because you don't find it exciting it doesn't mean it isn't. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
| ||
|
blabber
United States4448 Posts
On September 24 2015 08:26 NEEDZMOAR wrote: look at it from the bright side. When blizzard is done fucking lotv up maybe tournaments / the community will support a user-made rts e.g starbow. or better yet, play BW... | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
Similarly to the economy, they make assumptions based on testing singular ideas instead of a multitude of options to see what works best. We never got to try any other economic model, and this one does nothing about 22 workers per base. Potentially losing 22 workers to harass causes players to camp longer, harass to end games, and a high mineral income when fully saturated. 6 patches per base may have helped to lower the workers at each base and actually change the feel and pace of the game. The economy seemed to have resulted in making the game more convoluted at the expense of fun. Now the macro mechanics have just been reverted instead of undergoing further testing to find a solution. It's lazy game design to stick with something just because it works or feels more difficult.. instead of looking for a way to make the game more fun, and stick to that goal until a solution is found. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
I mean... The question can only be answered if you don't think it through whatsoever, at which point it doesn't make much sense. So well, I guess it is fine here on TL. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
HotS was worse, I gradually lost interest and eventually stopped playing. All the things I disliked about WoL got worse. LotV seems to be even worse then that. Sure, there are also improvements, but the overall direction is not what I want from an RTS game. I want meaningful long lasting battles. Sieges, defenses, positional play, strategic army movement, etc. I want big armies and carnage. But LotV seems to be all about small skirmishes, not too bad by itself but there should be more eventually, harassment, super fast expanding and reacting. Its no longer about out-thinking your opponent, its about out-clicking your opponent. And I am not getting younger... | ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
| ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
On September 21 2015 20:54 dirtydurb82 wrote: The intent is there - focus on strategy and micro, not macro mechanics. The exciting thing about this game is who had the most unique strategy and executed it, not who was able to keep building drones / probes / etc. The key is that macro decisionmaking will still be important, but the APM to make that macro happen will be reduced. Which is terrible for competition and the game's overall longevity... it means worse players will have a much easier time beating better players so everything will become more random. | ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
On September 24 2015 08:26 NEEDZMOAR wrote: look at it from the bright side. When blizzard is done fucking lotv up maybe tournaments / the community will support a user-made rts e.g starbow. This. Starbow is far better than either sc2 expansion so far. | ||
|
juve641
Russian Federation6 Posts
| ||
|
Zerg.Zilla
Hungary5029 Posts
| ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On September 30 2015 13:53 Zerg.Zilla wrote: No faith in LotV so far,new units look dumb and boring Why do you think that? I must say that the Liberator, Lurker and Reaver 2.0 are good units. Problem is though that the Liberator should actually be the Siege Tank and the Reaver 2.0 should actually be a Reaver. To me it seems like Blizzard is trying to go back to BW units without using BW units. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On September 21 2015 00:11 ProMeTheus112 wrote: come play bw everyone  I agree with this smart person here. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
On a side note, but still related, didn't they decrease colossus damage by 20%, thus making the most deathbally ground unit for that race less viable? Not just less viable, but bad to the point where it's no longer used in any situation or matchup. Terran and zerg armies got stronger - MMM-ghost-lib is the strongest TvP army that terran has probably ever had past the early game and early midgame. Zerg armies got stronger with the addition of the Ravager, Lurker and the strongest anti-air unit/ability in the game, Parasitic Bomb. A protoss building colossi for a mid-lategame army blob is extremely weak right now - and why would you build them? Other options are stronger. Even if you're not playing stargate or doing other stuff, the Disruptor can cover a lot of the roles of the colossus in a much stronger and cheaper way. The adept is very strong but contributes little to the type of armies that Colossi are strongest in - they're weakest in a big blob of units with a lot of supply - preferring to fight alone, in armies before ghosts hit the field in large numbers and when they are able to play aggressively without worrying about some very expensive units that could become paperweights if caught unsupported. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
and I agree with this smart person who agreed with the other smart person here. I mean ... sc2 dedgaem and Blizz is killing it more because leadership is a CnC guy with self esteem issues (apparent in Dustin's interviews) might as well play the dedbutslowlyrevivinglegendary gaem BW. or starbow inb4 valve makes starbow 2 haha haha just kidding. I wish you all the best. I had hoped that they'd do a good job and lost hope some time ago  | ||
| ||
