EPTCall To Action: Balance Testing TvZ. - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
EwilGorn
Malaysia7 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:12 TheDwf wrote: Having to wait 90 seconds (after energy upgrade, otherwise it's 135 seconds) to use the mediocre damage spell you want is horrible. Edit for clarity—90 seconds after the Raven is complete. Good point, However perhaps its due to the fact that ravens with 2 HSM each is too powerful? Unlike fungal or storm however you dont need the HSM to survive key timings while teching. Often you will have a strong composition that can benefit from the Support of Ravens as opposed to a composition that relies on the ravens to deal damage. I think if you could use ghosts to negate a lot of infestor energy then with fewer fungals to deny ravens if they pop in and do SOME damage to broods with AoE and then you chase or do additional damage with vikings or marines alongside Ghost snipe/dps to add some more damage ... Maybe that could work. There won't be a single easy solution to broodlords instead you will need to do more than one thing to kill a large number of them. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:18 ZeromuS wrote: Good point, However perhaps its due to the fact that ravens with 2 HSM each is too powerful? This is the only reason I can think of why they think the spell should be 125 energy. I really think they could still at least increase the range by 1-2, wouldn't be exactly gamebreaking since its still a pretty slow missile. | ||
|
zala2023
United States228 Posts
how about give reduce HSM energy to 75 like all the other AOE spells | ||
|
blawed
11 Posts
On August 09 2012 09:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote: This is a really nice and measured patch I think, I'm impressed. I would consider having creep recede faster instead of spread slower, but I'm sure they considered both options. I like this a lot eitherway. so you might come back now? yay | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:21 zala2023 wrote: this so called raven buff might as well as not exist since i hoestly dont think it will do anything how about give reduce HSM energy to 75 like all the other AOE spells You should consider how over-powered that would be. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
I don't know whether it's true but he says like this: "Actually it is a hidden buff for zerg: it'll take 1 less active tumor now to achieve the maximum spread rate in 1 direction. Nice going D. Kim, they'll never notice!" | ||
|
mGGLearning
Australia26 Posts
| ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
SugoZerg
France2 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:01 forsooth wrote: Nope. Terran mobile detection isn't comparable to that of Zerg and Protoss. Ravens lack the speed of overseers and aren't permacloaked like observers, and they're much more expensive than both. Like the science vessel, the role they play is a high tech spellcasting support unit that happens to detect rather than a dedicated detection unit like the aforementioned Z/P units. Scanning is Terran's primary means of detection and scouting just like it was in BW. Well, I didn't mean to reduce the area to the radius of an EMP, just reduce it so the terran player has the feeling that a raven might be a better plan than scans sometimes. Never see a terran random scanning near his army and killed an obs that not even on the screen they're looking at ? An innacurate scan should not get rewarded, and a little tweak of its range shouldn't hurt scouting or detecting banshee/dt rushes, but it would make terran player feel like raven would be better in mid/late game, making even more room for scoutingscans and mules. Anyway, i was just throwing of something on my mind, maybe i'm way off. And definitively, a raven buff in addition to that (speed/cost/abilities, whatever...) (I won't talk about any broodwar comparison, it's just too different from starcraft2.) | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:18 ZeromuS wrote: Good point, However perhaps its due to the fact that ravens with 2 HSM each is too powerful? Well, there's nothing wrong with Ravens being able to use only one HSM (I assume this is because we have to choose between 2 PDDs and one Missile when the Raven has full energy), or having to wait 90 seconds... if it's worth it. Currently I don't think it's the case. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:26 larse wrote: There are some one points out that the creep change is in fact a buff ! I don't know whether it's true but he says like this: "Actually it is a hidden buff for zerg: it'll take 1 less active tumor now to achieve the maximum spread rate in 1 direction. Nice going D. Kim, they'll never notice!" But that maximum spread read is smaller. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:21 Bagi wrote: This is the only reason I can think of why they think the spell should be 125 energy. I really think they could still at least increase the range by 1-2, wouldn't be exactly gamebreaking since its still a pretty slow missile. Good point, higher range would definitely give the zerg more time to escape or split his units, but at the same time you wouldn't have to kamikaze your raven. A "real" buff should be range+speed then ... ? | ||
Eps
Canada240 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:21 Bagi wrote: This is the only reason I can think of why they think the spell should be 125 energy. I really think they could still at least increase the range by 1-2, wouldn't be exactly gamebreaking since its still a pretty slow missile. Then why not lower the SM Energy cost to 100, implement a 30-50 second Cooldown. This prevents it from being cast twice by 1 Raven in a battle. And let's face it, waiting for 200 energy takes a long time. They're a very expensive unit, and should have some sort of guranteed Spell-Utility, and not just an expensive Detector. Ravens have the longest build time as is already compared to the other 2 Casters. HT's can be warped-in. Infestors can be built in as high amounts as Resource/Larva limits it to. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:28 Scrubwave wrote: Compared to blanket storms and chain fungals? Not at all. Those spells don't compound damage. 2 storms in the same place dont do more damage than one storm. 3 fungals cast at the same time dont do more damage than one fungal. I believe that multiple HSM do more damage than one HSM. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
| ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
| ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:30 ZeromuS wrote: Those spells don't compound damage. 2 storms in the same place dont do more damage than one storm. 3 fungals cast at the same time dont do more damage than one fungal. I believe that multiple HSM do more damage than one HSM. To my understanding, each Storm dropped deals an instant 10-20 damage, while the rest of it is proc-ed over time. I may be off on this. You do have somewhat of a point when you're discussing Storms. However, FG shouldn't be looked at as purely a Damage Spell. It negates Micro, and also reveals Cloaked Units. It has tremendous utility outside of just damage. SM however is a pure damage spell, and thus should be more effective at it's role than FG. Simarily FG and Storms can be casted at 9 Range. SM is gimped at a range of 6. If the spell is that severely handi-capped already, it should offer a high Reward when it does hit. Especially since it costs much more Energy than the other 2 spells. Not to mention that SM can be dodged. | ||
| ||
