EPTSituation Report: Patch 1.4, Blizz's Explanations - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
StatX
Canada343 Posts
| ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On September 23 2011 11:52 skatbone wrote: I love the immortal range buff. However, I'm confused by this: "Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage." When did the current meta-game revolve around "heavy Immortal usage"? Kim's wording--"moving away"--suggests that "heavy immortal usage" was once the norm. Heavy Immortal usage was very strong in beta, believe it or not. It was quite common and very powerful. On September 23 2011 11:39 Qxz wrote: Uh... are they retarded? Overseers require Lair tech, i.e. they are mid-game units. Changing its cost changes nothing to the early game. Uhh are you retarded? You realize there is no defined set point in which the game switches from early-mid-late, right? It is extremely arbitrary. It is not split into "Hatch -> Early" "Lair -> Mid" "Hive -> Late". Getting a lair can still occur in the early game. | ||
|
supdubdup
United States916 Posts
| ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing. I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important). | ||
|
Eishi_Ki
Korea (South)1667 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:13 supdubdup wrote: I wonder what the carrier buffs would be. (Microing w/o interceptors returning to carriers?) :X This, Interceptors healing, increase movement speed, hardened shields. A man can dream. God dammit Blizzard.... why did you ever invented the fucking Mothership | ||
|
Sufinsil
United States760 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:42 KimJongChill wrote: +5 rax build time is so insignificant, I honestly don't notice any difference on ladder lol. I think its more to prevent that forward bunker going down as quick when the first marine is being built. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On September 23 2011 11:59 darkscream wrote: Battlecruisers are actually a legit option, mostly because if you neural a bunch of BCs they actually can't kill each other. Or zerg can just make a bunch of corruptors and rape bcs... | ||
|
pezit
Sweden302 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches. Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing. I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important). Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything. | ||
|
Qxz
Canada189 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:12 Thrasymachus725 wrote:Uhh are you retarded? You realize there is no defined set point in which the game switches from early-mid-late, right? It is extremely arbitrary. It is not split into "Hatch -> Early" "Lair -> Mid" "Hive -> Late". Getting a lair can still occur in the early game. Are you seriously arguing that there is such thing as "early game overseers", that they may help you against what is generally understood by "early game pushes zerg are vulnerable to", and calling me retarded at the same time? I'd try to prove you wrong but I think L-O-L is more appropriate. | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:26 pezit wrote: Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything. Thank god there are people like you who know better than Blizzard and the majority then. | ||
|
Conquerer67
United States605 Posts
| ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:27 Qxz wrote: Are you seriously arguing that there is such thing as "early game overseers", that they may help you against what is generally understood by "early game pushes zerg are vulnerable to", and calling me retarded at the same time? I'd try to prove you wrong but I think L-O-L is more appropriate. Did you ever think that maybe... just maybe, they want you to be able to scout in the early game for something coming in the mid game? Where did you get the idea that I think there are "early game overseers that can scout early game pushes?" Those are your words not mine. Early game scouting does not equate to scouting early game pushes. Zerg actually has the BEST scouting options for those early game all-ins and pushes via overlords (not that that is saying much). Terrans cannot scan, or they get so far behind on MULES, and Protoss have nothing until Hallucinate, Observers or Stargate, at which point is is basically too late to stop them. Did you want Blizz to give you the Overseer to scout the 4 gate? How about a 2 rax? Do you think that would be balanced? The Overseer CAN and OFTEN DOES come out in the part of the game known as the early game. But no one gets an Overseer to scout all-ins and early game pushes. Never have. Never will. They get Overseers in the early game to scout what the opponent is preparing for the mid game. Prove that wrong...? | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:26 pezit wrote: Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything. And the whining minority know best? Based on what data? Being loud doesn't make one smart. | ||
|
Datum
United States371 Posts
In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership. We decided to go with the Mothership for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being that we felt its maneuverability required tweaking. As for the acceleration increase itself, we found that the biggest problem was that the unit felt very unresponsive to use. For a unit whose positioning is so important, we felt that making it easier to maneuver made the most sense. What?!?! I don't understand how they could choose the mothership over the carrier, and I really can't understand how they felt the biggest problem with the mothership was it's maneuverability! | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope  | ||
|
kedinik
United States352 Posts
Let alone that poorly positioned siege units were the primary neural target before... | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:41 Mohdoo wrote: Its depressing to think that in a slightly different world, Carriers would have been a viable unit in Protoss play. Carriers have the potential to be a really awesome unit and its really saddening to realize that it the mothership, a unit which is inherently less interesting and gimicky compared to a unit you can only make one of. I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope Carriers are not even bad, they just are not useful in the current metagame.(And even then I have seen some interesting Carrier play by Mana) | ||
|
anmolsinghmzn2009
India1783 Posts
| ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
| ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On September 23 2011 12:41 Mohdoo wrote: I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope I think at the moment, Blizz realizes that there is virtually nothing they can do to carriers that will fix them, thanks to 3 units: The Viking, the Marine and the Corruptor. They all destroy Carriers so brutally due to their range (vikings) their armor (corruptors) and their DPS (marine). How do you expect them to be buffed in a significant way? Increased armor would be just about all they could do, and in reality that won't solve the problem that is how easily they are countered. But if you believe that Blizz doesn't WANT carriers to be good... you are insane. Why wouldn't Blizzard want a unit that they know is fun and interesting to watch and play with to be good? It makes no logical sense. Blizzard realizes that the carrier is broken in relation to other races. The mothership is a single unit (not a whole build), is already used effectively in many cases and requires a small tweak or two to be powerful. It is an easy change. They understand that the carrier requires a fundamental design change to be viable as a build, and it will be a large change. I expect that they are waiting until HOTS to make a change that will be both fun and powerful. It is only at an expansion that they can they add content to make carriers powerful, or alter the units (such as aforementioned Vikings, Marines and Corruptors) that counter carriers so seriously. | ||
| ||
