EPTOn October 25 2012 10:34 GARcher wrote:
You mean warpgates in PvAll endgame? And larva injects?
You mean warpgates in PvAll endgame? And larva injects?
And mules!
My take: "#SaveHOTS" - Page 19
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
winsonsonho
Korea (South)143 Posts
And mules! | ||
|
Quantify
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Dijego
Netherlands33 Posts
These are game changing spells that determine the outcome of a game, but keep in mind that a game needs an outcome, especially in a competitive setting. At one point a player must be able to pull a trick out of his sleeve and beat the other player. However cheesy it may seem. There is a balance between races and a balance in the game. You talk about support and carry like in a MOBA, that is in my opinion a silly comparison. A carry is nothing without it's support when the game is properly balanced. So the support is a carry on itself, it carries the "carry". The reason carries are valued more is because of the visual credits they get. If what you are saying is true, how come we do not have an obvious stronger race? The truth is that the game is balanced on things outside the game as well, also known as the meta. The original post is nice, but in design aspect it only shows strengths of races and maybe some weird moments. The archon toilet might be extremely powerful, but a mothership doesn't do much when it is emp-ed and it might even hurt when neural parasite comes into play. I think most players that complain about balance, must have a lot of time on their hands, because I want games to end at some point and not last forever.. Which perfect balance would lead to in the end. So keep that in mind when you talk about balance. Just saying..in a few words, not going to write my entire reasoning. | ||
|
GrassEater
Sweden417 Posts
Suggestion: Stalker +4 damage but no bonus vs armoured, warpgate removed from the game, forcefields are destructable with maybe 200 hp. Why, zealots are already pretty strong. And it is stalkers that gets most from the forcefields. Stalkers need to be a bit more costeffective vs mutas lings and marines if this is to work. Zealots just gets kited. Blink pushes might be strong, but they will be with 2 less warpin cycles so this is probably the best way to buff protoss. | ||
|
Meatex
Australia285 Posts
One thing everyone agrees on though is that deathball isn't good for the game - or the terrible terrible damage design philosophy What worries me is that blizzard seem to know this and making moves to fix it but at the same time seem to attached to their initial design so we wait and hope that legacy of void finally moves far enough away from the deathball design | ||
|
FinestHour
United States18466 Posts
| ||
|
GoodSirTets
Canada200 Posts
| ||
|
GARcher
Canada294 Posts
On October 26 2012 22:58 GoodSirTets wrote: Regarding your opinion on casting units, I thought that's what people loved about broodwar, how it was balanced on all races having overpowered stuff. Reavers, Strong Tanks, Defilers, ect. Reavers, Strong Tanks and Defilers weren't overpowered because it takes good micro/positioning/map awareness to be effective. They are completely different from stuff like Colossi where you just A move and can still deal good damage. | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
| ||
|
skunkz
France32 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On October 18 2012 09:52 SaintEx wrote: I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree? well there should be ways of combining the two, make a casual ladder version with simplified mechanics ( perhaps worker production is automized) where players can focus more on army etc and less on mechanics, that would keep a lot of my friends who are casual-gamers to play sc2. | ||
|
osiris17
United States165 Posts
| ||
|
Demurity
United States424 Posts
| ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
I especially like the points you make about forcefields. For a long time I really despised gateway units, but they had to be weak. The reason for that is the forcefield,BUT it is also the warp mechanic, instant reinforcements even when attacking will force units to be weaker. This thread talks about protoss balancing as well and idenifies the warp mechanic as a big problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374623 I think both the warp gate and the FF may need some changes. The other post suggests warp gates to incur a penalty to production time ( longer cooldown based on unit production time). This would force a trade off between building armies quickly and reinforcing instantly. The other point worth noting is that the current HotS oracle is almost able to replace the sentry by itself due to timewarp and higher speed. I also feel the need to give all maps small ramps just to keep protoss from dying early game is really just stupid. Let's just get rid of FF and use timewarp instead maybe. Make the sentry a true support unit with hallucinations, a slightly stronger attack and maybe a guardian shield that does not block damage but instead blocks emp and fungal! Also I like the idea of giving ghosts widow mines, that sounds pretty cool. Raven EMP is nice but would be too similar to science vessel IMO. Maybe change the EMP mechanic somehow. Anyway good post. Let's see where blizzard goes from here. | ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
| ||
|
Rick Deckard
90 Posts
I also hope that Blizzard makes the game more attractive for casual players, (as destiny suggested). I would like to see the game become even more popular and successful. Finally I remember when I first watched NASL and your casting. I got the impression that you were over confident and too quick to criticize. After watching you cast many games and play a few my opinion has totally changed. You are clearly a world class analyst well deserving of both my deepest respect and admiration. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
-MMM healing + stim -infestors/fungal -forcefield There is not really a good alternative to these options in most games. I really think you could safely remove FF with TW now in the game to its place. Also removing Mothership and toss reliance on vortex will likely force more dynamic development. And finally make fungal deal no damage, instead let it prevent all abilities and root for a longer time - thus it is more supportive and a counter to casters. For terran add something to make mech equally attractive as mmm play | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game. actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger. The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it) | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger. The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it) This sounded wrong and Liquipedia seems to disagree as well: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Siege_Tank http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Siege_Tank Sieged Tank in SCBW: 24.2~ DPS (result of the siege damage divided by the siege cooldown of 75 divided by the cooldown of the game speed of 26) Sieged Tank in SC2: 11.7 DPS (taken from page) | ||
| ||
