|
On October 29 2012 15:48 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 15:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: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) This sounded wrong and Liquipedia seems to disagree as well: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Siege_Tankhttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Siege_TankSieged 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)
yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2.
|
On October 29 2012 15:57 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 15:48 dcemuser wrote:On October 29 2012 15:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: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) This sounded wrong and Liquipedia seems to disagree as well: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Siege_Tankhttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Siege_TankSieged 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) yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2.
Tanks were better in BW because Shields took full damage.
|
On October 29 2012 00:50 Freeborn wrote:
The problem with WoL is, there are only a few imba mechanics and they force the game flow :
-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
Add Warpgate, Larva Inject, Mules, Marauders, Roaches, Immortals, and Colossus.
|
You post in the HotS forum, and add #savehots, but everything you talk about is WoL. Are you seriously suggesting they change the entire game and throw away 10 years of development and 2 years of patching to get us to where we are now? WoL is in a good, balanced place right now. I'm not disagreeing with some of the things you say, but Blizzard cannot and will not want to change WoL too drastically.
|
On October 30 2012 06:43 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 15:57 TaShadan wrote:On October 29 2012 15:48 dcemuser wrote:On October 29 2012 15:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: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) This sounded wrong and Liquipedia seems to disagree as well: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Siege_Tankhttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Siege_TankSieged 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) yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2. Tanks were better in BW because Shields took full damage.
dont forget that tanks only did 70 explosive damage in siege mode, which means half the damage to small units e.g marines zealots lings etc.
|
I haven't read every post of this thread, and I'm pretty sure someone mentioned this in the 20 pages of posts...but just in case...
So... gretorp sees a problem with EMP but not storm??? I'm not saying EMP doesn't have its problems (sucks to have better position/army/army comp be smashed by EMPs), but Storm has all of EMPs problems and then some...
Storm is effective in all matchups, EMP only works vs energy units...
Also 2 ghosts can't fire EMP then transform into a thor...
|
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
|
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote:
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak.
Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak.
That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win.
Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands.
|
On November 06 2012 05:05 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote:
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability? While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak. Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak. That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win. Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands.
Life lost wasnt because Flash dominated him, it was because he derped and lost 12 infestors for free. Flash didnt do anything special that series. Then second time around, Life started playing like himself and 4-0ed Flash in painful manners.
|
On October 18 2012 09:35 Atrbyg wrote:
I really like the ghost and raven ability changes. I think its a really elegant solution.
I'm surprised Blizzard hasn't even tested this out.
|
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=380463¤tpage=2#31
after reading the david kim interview i am very disappointed. no change to fungal, not a word about nerfing/removing FF and vortex. at least they start changing voidray and raven. but also no word about hydras, ultras, ghosts etc..
carrier might get a buff: fungal no longer hits interceptors, so mass carrier + support is completely unbeatable for zerg. hurray. just introduce nonys carrier micro and maybe a slight build time buff and carrier will be fine.
blizzard did shit, then it got a lot better and now they are on the way to being at most mediocre...
|
With the exception of the PvZ BL/Mothership reliance I disagree with a lot of what was posted here. His post has more to do with low level balance than high level balance.
Has anybody noticed that whether or not fungal/FF/EMP seem OP is based quite often on who's playing and who they're playing against? Sorry, but the whole "I was just sitting there with my army and next thing I know BOOM whole thing gets emp'd out of nowhere!" It didn't get EMP'd out of nowhere, it got EMP'd by ghosts who walked up to your army who you could have detected had you employed proper army positioning/observer placement/mini-map awareness prior to it happening. Terran's get every marine fungal'd when they move brazenly onto creep or again aren't watching. FF becomes insurmountable for Zergs who keep all their units on a single hotkey and attack from one location in bad spots vs Toss because they didn't realize the toss was attacking until their army was at their third. BW was balanced because each race had a number of imbalanced units. So Toss relies heavily on the sentry? What was Terran in the early game of BW w/o the medic? Or Zerg without the lurker? Protoss without the reaver? You think SC2 is hard and feels imbalanced when you suck, try playing Terran BW. But once you're good at T in BW it's arguably the strongest race.
|
But yeah, the mothership PvZ dynamic is BS. BL/infestor waaaaaaaaaaaay too good, and toss needs a way of dealing with it that doesn't involve landing a single spell. (although it's not like either toss gets zergs entire army, or zerg dominates, there's a bit of a spectrum of how well those engagements play out so it's not entirely bad. I just with it wasn't a single spell, but maybe multiple.)
|
Thanks for your post, I agree on "Remove the mothership and all Hero like units in the game. Vortex has to go, fungal has to change" and like your solution making FG slowing instead of snare
vor PvZ lategame I'd love to see stasis field instead ov vortex
|
On November 06 2012 05:59 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:05 Antylamon wrote:On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote:
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability? While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak. Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak. That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win. Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands. Life lost wasnt because Flash dominated him, it was because he derped and lost 12 infestors for free. Flash didnt do anything special that series. Then second time around, Life started playing like himself and 4-0ed Flash in painful manners.
Yup, life headbutted alllll his infestors into a few stimmed bio units. If you'd actualyl watched the game, life shut down every single attack that flash made because of fungals. He was about to push back flash's bio tank army with his broodlords when he made this one mistake. Starcraft is a game based on who makes the least "minor" errors. If you're saying that terrans have to rely on on major mistakes from the zerg to win, then what does this say about the place of fungal growth in the zerg's army?
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina72 Posts
Did anyone repost this on official blizzard forum? I really hope this reaches the devs.
|
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote:
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
Uh. The issue was never about how fast you could accurately click to cast the spell. The issue was that once casted they`d cut off half your army and there really isn`t much you can do as an attacker except watch that bit of your army die. No spell or unit in broodwar was ever that accessible, unforgiving and cruel at the same time.
|
A really well thought out post. I'd wish Blizzard would respond to that and have a blog discussing these things. Like their D3 team does.
|
honestly these changes are trying to make this into a completely different game.... I agree there are problems but i think three is a reason that 50k+ people tuned into wcs yesterday, because people like watching this game.
Regarding blizzard making money, at least they are putting that cash to good use. Balancing games for 10 years cant be free can it?
|
I think the real problem in sc2 is that the battles end so extremly fast, maybe it is only because i am plat but most of time after the battle i dont know why i won the battle...
Did i have luck because i my unit had a better position, did my "micro" matter or did my opponent a mistake?
It feels in wc3 and BW you had more controll over the battle, because you had more time and could see how your opponent moves his units and try to counter his moves.
I cant really point out why it is different in sc2...maybe because the game speed is faster? maybe because you are able to fit so much firepower in a small place (broodlord/infestor and collosi deathballs)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
