|
On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing
mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing.
Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass
p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts
|
On August 15 2012 10:02 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:42 forsooth wrote:On August 14 2012 20:55 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On August 14 2012 11:53 Zealot Lord wrote: Hmm with some tweaks I can potentially see tempest/oracle being useful and fun to play/watch under the hands of a pro. but balance aside, I really dislike the feel and looks of the battle hellion and especially the warhound - its units one would expect to see from a C&C ripoff or something =/
I'm usually not the one to complain, but Blizard wanting terran players to mech more in TvP results in.. essentially a mechanical marauder? That is so incredibly lame.. -_- You summarised it well, they really do feel like cheesey fucking C&C units. I don't mean to pick on Dustin, I mean he's a person, we shouldn't be assholes to the guy but isn't it a coincidence that he turns up and all the elements of Brood War which were good seem pissed away just to make room for "cool shit! LOL" in SC2? These units have a distinct C&C or Supreme Commander lameness about them. Plus - to get nerdy, they just don't really seem to fit in with the lore of the units for the Terrans in the Starcraft fucking universe! I get the impression that Blizzard don't know what mech actually means. It does not damn well mean that you get units with the same movement, acceration, turning speed as bio units, the same or similar firing rates or types but just make the unit models fucking machines! because the new Terran mech army seems no different at all from a bio army! Except unlike having to press T to stim them, the warhound will autocast the damn homing rocket..... Madness On August 14 2012 11:58 Dalavita wrote: Mothership core is absolutely retarded in the fact that you can get it really early and it turns into a siege tank that shoots as fast as a marauder. WHAT!?
Also, recall allowing Protoss to do all-ins and bail as soon as they get in trouble.
It's like Blizzard wants to screw over the earlygame.
Nothing needs to be said about the Tempest. Get rid of it and bring back the Carrier.
And it's nice to see that my predictions on how bad warhounds and battle hellions would be were pretty much spot on.
Also, lolacle.
The only thing that has any potential in HotS is the widow mine, and even that needs a couple of big changes.
Why is Blizzard doing this to us? Theorycraft time. Make mothership core require cyb core, change range to 12 and reduce damage. Make recall a researchable item at the cyb core, requires twighlight council before you can use it. Seems to allow people to still defend their base *kinda* early, delays the recall which I agree seems overly powerful yet makes it interesting in that it's researchable (and possible to chronoboost it) AND it makes you have to choose either air weapons/armour or researching recall (unless you build 2 cyb cores) Solved? Protoss already has an easier time than anyone else defending drops with cannons and warp-ins. Adding more ways is ridiculous. No, it's not ridiculous, you need to read the article on the defenders advantage. I'm talking about all 3 races, not just Protoss, needing slightly better base defence, which makes for longer games and just that tiny chance more that we'll have comebacks - which seem unfortunately extremely rare - even 2 years into WoL. There's already more than sufficient at-home defense for every race. Defender's advantage for Protoss is a PvP issue, not a PvZ/T issue. Sticking a big arclite cannon on top of a nexus in a base that already has cannons and power fields for units to be warped in is absolutely ridiculous, and recall just takes it even further. The whole idea is idiotic and guarantees a Protoss main complete freedom from all harass.
If Protoss players want a more stable mirror, they should look at the actual problems with the design of warp gates rather than welcoming even more forgiving, get out of trouble free options that will make this game even more stale than it already is.
|
On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts
Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time?
|
I dunno if I can spare 60 apm to run my whole army. I might have to not individually target every single unit. Do you guys think I'll still be okay..?
|
On August 15 2012 10:02 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:42 forsooth wrote:On August 14 2012 20:55 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On August 14 2012 11:53 Zealot Lord wrote: Hmm with some tweaks I can potentially see tempest/oracle being useful and fun to play/watch under the hands of a pro. but balance aside, I really dislike the feel and looks of the battle hellion and especially the warhound - its units one would expect to see from a C&C ripoff or something =/
I'm usually not the one to complain, but Blizard wanting terran players to mech more in TvP results in.. essentially a mechanical marauder? That is so incredibly lame.. -_- You summarised it well, they really do feel like cheesey fucking C&C units. I don't mean to pick on Dustin, I mean he's a person, we shouldn't be assholes to the guy but isn't it a coincidence that he turns up and all the elements of Brood War which were good seem pissed away just to make room for "cool shit! LOL" in SC2? These units have a distinct C&C or Supreme Commander lameness about them. Plus - to get nerdy, they just don't really seem to fit in with the lore of the units for the Terrans in the Starcraft fucking universe! I get the impression that Blizzard don't know what mech actually means. It does not damn well mean that you get units with the same movement, acceration, turning speed as bio units, the same or similar firing rates or types but just make the unit models fucking machines! because the new Terran mech army seems no different at all from a bio army! Except unlike having to press T to stim them, the warhound will autocast the damn homing rocket..... Madness On August 14 2012 11:58 Dalavita wrote: Mothership core is absolutely retarded in the fact that you can get it really early and it turns into a siege tank that shoots as fast as a marauder. WHAT!?
Also, recall allowing Protoss to do all-ins and bail as soon as they get in trouble.
It's like Blizzard wants to screw over the earlygame.
Nothing needs to be said about the Tempest. Get rid of it and bring back the Carrier.
And it's nice to see that my predictions on how bad warhounds and battle hellions would be were pretty much spot on.
Also, lolacle.
The only thing that has any potential in HotS is the widow mine, and even that needs a couple of big changes.
Why is Blizzard doing this to us? Theorycraft time. Make mothership core require cyb core, change range to 12 and reduce damage. Make recall a researchable item at the cyb core, requires twighlight council before you can use it. Seems to allow people to still defend their base *kinda* early, delays the recall which I agree seems overly powerful yet makes it interesting in that it's researchable (and possible to chronoboost it) AND it makes you have to choose either air weapons/armour or researching recall (unless you build 2 cyb cores) Solved? Protoss already has an easier time than anyone else defending drops with cannons and warp-ins. Adding more ways is ridiculous. No, it's not ridiculous, you need to read the article on the defenders advantage. I'm talking about all 3 races, not just Protoss, needing slightly better base defence, which makes for longer games and just that tiny chance more that we'll have comebacks - which seem unfortunately extremely rare - even 2 years into WoL. Do people really want better home defence to make games last longer? I feel like people are getting more and more "late game orineted", going pure eco-defensive style to get to the late game asap, when they build up their deathball and slowpushes to the enemy base and I really think that it makes the game boring to watch and play. With so much defense, you can't really rely on doing damage with timing pushes so you're forced to do your own defenses and turtle up until you get a 200/200 army, when you can finally push out.
|
On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics
60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home.
|
On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT are quite complex that the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home.
In the current build (which may well change) Haywire is autocast, like charge, targeting mechanical units only. It requires almost no micro unless the Toss leads with probes or hallucinated units.
|
On August 15 2012 11:03 yeastiality wrote: I dunno if I can spare 60 apm to run my whole army. I might have to not individually target every single unit. Do you guys think I'll still be okay..?
you're not going to have 6 warhounds or only warhound as your entire army. Unless you're in the woods league
and the apm example I gave was for haywire ONLY. unless you want to auto those so they can do wonder damage to battle hellions or stalkers instead of immortals/tanks/sentries/colossus
|
On August 15 2012 11:10 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:03 yeastiality wrote: I dunno if I can spare 60 apm to run my whole army. I might have to not individually target every single unit. Do you guys think I'll still be okay..? you're not going to have 6 warhounds or only warhound as your entire army. Unless you're in the woods league and the apm example I gave was for haywire ONLY. unless you want to auto those so they can do wonder damage to battle hellions or stalkers instead of immortals/tanks/sentries/colossus
you're right, I should turn off autocast and manually target haywire missiles on hardened shields
good call
|
On August 15 2012 11:12 yeastiality wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:10 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 11:03 yeastiality wrote: I dunno if I can spare 60 apm to run my whole army. I might have to not individually target every single unit. Do you guys think I'll still be okay..? you're not going to have 6 warhounds or only warhound as your entire army. Unless you're in the woods league and the apm example I gave was for haywire ONLY. unless you want to auto those so they can do wonder damage to battle hellions or stalkers instead of immortals/tanks/sentries/colossus you're right, I should turn off autocast and manually target haywire missiles on hardened shields good call
yes, you should. Because haywire bypass harden shield so that 4 haywire missles will deplete immortal shield for your tanks to do dmg.
can you stop speaking in sarcastic tones? the first time is cute but now its just annoying
|
Guys, what if HOTS is just trying to make players make more than one type of unit? I haven't studied TvP much, but it's obvious they're trying to make pure mech less viable by making it weak to air, meaning that bio-mech will be a good option- same in TvZ, with Blinding Cloud, and Broodlords (which are already good against mech), swarm hosts, vipers, etc nullifying a pure form of play. Dunno. Just my two cents, but I play Zerg so I won't say much about TvP.
|
On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. ok, I'm pretty sure no one would use marauders if they had "rather shit dps" vs zealots. When stimmed (which they should always be when engaging) they actually have 10 DPS vs zealots.
That's more DPS than stalkers have against vikings! And only slightly less than zealot DPS. And marauders are ranged units! The reason people use bio, and the reason toss needs some kind of splash to trade with it, is because of the high DPS of MMM.
Getting back on track, I feel for terrans that don't have the APM to split their bio units, and that is why they are making all these beefy factory units that require little micro. What Blizzard should be doing at the same time though, is giving protoss more opportunities for micro.
I loved how no matter how good at BW I got with Terran (Not very good), there was still so much more that was possible to squeeze out of my units. I'm sad that since I started playing Protoss during the beta, Blizzard has stripped all of the interesting micro away from the race. They left in the gimmicky tactics, but the voidray and zealot micro tricks have been patched out. If they don't give toss some more microable units, I'm switching races.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. (Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!) That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder.
Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role..
This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay.
By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game.
Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found.
1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed. 2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder.
The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games.
Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race.
Now with HoTS 1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them'
Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used.
TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes.
WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying.
Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
By the way, if anybody makes another 'I don't get why people are unhappy' after that rather long explanatory post I'll be pissed off. You can disagree with me, but don't tell me I'm not basing my opinions on anything :p
|
On August 15 2012 11:40 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. ok, I'm pretty sure no one would use marauders if they had "rather shit dps" vs zealots. When stimmed (which they should always be when engaging) they actually have 10 DPS vs zealots. That's more DPS than stalkers have against vikings! And only slightly less than zealot DPS. And marauders are ranged units! The reason people use bio, and the reason toss needs some kind of splash to trade with it, is because of the high DPS of MMM. Getting back on track, I feel for terrans that don't have the APM to split their bio units, and that is why they are making all these beefy factory units that require little micro. What Blizzard should be doing at the same time though, is giving protoss more opportunities for micro. I loved how no matter how good at BW I got with Terran (Not very good), there was still so much more that was possible to squeeze out of my units. I'm sad that since I started playing Protoss during the beta, Blizzard has stripped all of the interesting micro away from the race. They left in the gimmicky tactics, but the voidray and zealot micro tricks have been patched out. If they don't give toss some more microable units, I'm switching races.
you shouldn't compare units to units cross race, it doesn't have much significant behind it. terran does not have the massive aoe potential like protoss does with colossus, HT, and archons, so they make up for it by having powerful single target dps units.
Lets put it into perspective. marauders costs about 2-3x marines but do less dps to zealots (10 vs 11). For a decent costly unit, it will take them 13-15 shots just to kill a 100 mineral unit.That's pretty bad in my book.
But people still have to make marauders for concussion and tank buffer against chargelots and colossus. Doesn't mean that they aren't terrible against zealots.
|
On August 15 2012 11:52 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:40 Fig wrote:On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. ok, I'm pretty sure no one would use marauders if they had "rather shit dps" vs zealots. When stimmed (which they should always be when engaging) they actually have 10 DPS vs zealots. That's more DPS than stalkers have against vikings! And only slightly less than zealot DPS. And marauders are ranged units! The reason people use bio, and the reason toss needs some kind of splash to trade with it, is because of the high DPS of MMM. Getting back on track, I feel for terrans that don't have the APM to split their bio units, and that is why they are making all these beefy factory units that require little micro. What Blizzard should be doing at the same time though, is giving protoss more opportunities for micro. I loved how no matter how good at BW I got with Terran (Not very good), there was still so much more that was possible to squeeze out of my units. I'm sad that since I started playing Protoss during the beta, Blizzard has stripped all of the interesting micro away from the race. They left in the gimmicky tactics, but the voidray and zealot micro tricks have been patched out. If they don't give toss some more microable units, I'm switching races. you shouldn't compare units to units cross race, it doesn't have much significant behind it. terran does not have the massive aoe potential like protoss does with colossus, HT, and archons, so they make up for it by having powerful single target dps units. Lets put it into perspective. marauders costs about 2-3x marines but do less dps to zealots (10 vs 11). For a decent costly unit, it will take them 13-15 shots just to kill a 100 mineral unit.That's pretty bad in my book. But people still have to make marauders for concussion and tank buffer against chargelots and colossus. Doesn't mean that they aren't terrible against zealots. Ok I won't get into that stuff. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't appreciate the power of the strong units of their race.
But hmm, maybe I'm the same way. I hate the colossus. Even though it is super powerful damage-wise, it is the biggest reason for stagnation in each of the protoss matchups. It singlehandedly prevents any stargate units from being viable, since terrans are always going to make vikings because of it. No phoenixes, no voidrays, no carriers, no mothership. And it also means that any observers are less usable, and warp prisms especially suffer. The fact that a whole 7 units of toss can be hit by anti-air is a huge problem, and putting in something like the must-be-countered-by-aa colossus was terrible for the game. Blizzard was so pleased with it's unique weakness, that they didn't realize how much it would detract from the viability of entire tech trees.
So, maybe you hate the marauder's design the same way I do the Colossus? I would agree if that's the case. If Blizzard took out both the marauder and the colossus, the PvT matchup would flourish.
|
On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. (Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!) That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder. Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role.. This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay. By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game. Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found. 1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed. 2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder. The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games. Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race. Now with HoTS1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them' Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used. TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes. WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying. Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems.
Too long, didn't read. Did you actually listen to the commentary in the Battle Reports? Alpha build, not final. Derp
User was warned for this post
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On August 15 2012 12:41 Frenzia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. (Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!) That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder. Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role.. This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay. By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game. Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found. 1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed. 2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder. The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games. Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race. Now with HoTS1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them' Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used. TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes. WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying. Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems. Too long, didn't read. Did you actually listen to the commentary in the Battle Reports? Alpha build, not final. Derp Oh I wasn't aware it was Alpha build, thanks for your astoundingly informative post.....
|
On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. (Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!) + Show Spoiler +That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder.
Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role..
This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay.
By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game.
Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found.
1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed. 2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder.
The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games.
Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race.
Now with HoTS 1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them'
Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used.
TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes.
WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying.
Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems.
Completely agree on all points. Also, I hate that Blizzard disregards such basic RTS concepts like defender's advantage and positioning during battle.
|
On August 15 2012 12:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 12:41 Frenzia wrote:On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 15 2012 11:04 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 10:58 Shiori wrote:On August 15 2012 10:52 iky43210 wrote:On August 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:On August 15 2012 08:16 IPA wrote: TL forums are a joke. Everything has to be viewed in a hysterical fashion with plenty of hyperbole thrown around. Everything is the WORST or the BEST EVER.
It's a battle report showing a couple bad players messing around in a build that is nowhere close to retail. Read that again.
To everyone saying "Fuck this, I'm leaving to play _____" -- ok, then. Enjoy your game and don't let the door hit you on the way out. All the money, all the players (BW and otherwise), and all the tournaments will be formed around HotS.
I will be there, playing, spectating, and having a blast. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be alone. The thing about this BR is that they WANT us to bitch and say what WE don't thing it's right and should be changed, that's why they are making these BR, as other guys are saying, a roach is a roach no matter the stats it has, a warhound will keep being a warhound even if his attack is reduced to half, and excellent example of this is the corruptor, do you really think that any spell in the corrutor will make it more dinamic or a different stats that the ones already has? well the answer probably is no, and the good spell will only happen if blizzard get's the feedback it needs, and not by keeping our mouths shut if what we are seeing is not a good thing mech needs a warhound like unit, there isn't much way to get around it. I agree the art is ugly and could use some changing. Also warhound can have alot more depths than people give credit for, at least wait till the beta. I imagine having Haywire and speed will make it more apm intensive than people imagine. Having warhound isn't going to replace siege tanks, because relatively they do shit dps compare to tanks once you reach critical mass p.s if you have 6 warhound, to micro them perfectly (excluding position and kiting, just haywire alone) will require you to spend a minimum of 60 APM. food for thoughts Considering that the Warhound is basically a better version of the Marauder, I don't think you're going to see much magical micro go into it. Besides, what's 60APM when the rest of mech is virtually immobile most of the time? so marines are somehow more micro intensive than marauders? I find that kind of weird why people would shit on it so much. the marine / marauder relationship with zealots / colossus / HT made the entire Bio force is extremely apm intensive. Marauders actually is also responsible for this because their rather shit dps to zealots but marines melt too quickly created this dynamics 60 apm is quite alot consider that is haywire only, for 6 warhounds. Units need to be reposition, tanks need focus fire, window mine, ghosts still need to fight against HT, and then there is also macro back at home. (Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!) That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder. Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role.. This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay. By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game. Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found. 1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed. 2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder. The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games. Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race. Now with HoTS1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them' Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used. TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes. WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying. Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems. Too long, didn't read. Did you actually listen to the commentary in the Battle Reports? Alpha build, not final. Derp Oh I wasn't aware it was Alpha build, thanks for your astoundingly informative post.....
You're welcome
|
|
|
|