|
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote:
I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans)..
Qxc is one of the least biased terrans out there, and he took time to explain his views in a very thorough way (one of the few who did that in this batch). I'm fairly certain you should be capable of disagreeing with him without opening your post in this agressive way.
|
If they want to buff Hydra vs T they should buff health.
Health buff = good vs Terran
Attack buff = good vs Protoss.
On the same line of thoughts, they should slightly decrease Swarm Host attack and Increase swarms' health if they want to make the unit useful vs Terran.
|
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
|
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote:
I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that
Are you being serious? He is one of the few pros who tends to offer the least biased insights and also comes up with different ways to balance/change units. Mineral-cost on locusts should be an option to consider, it wouldn't be anything new, interceptors on Carriers already cost minerals but I guess just even suggesting that somehow makes him bias. QXC was for the most part, in these "interviews", the only pro who went into any detail on the proposed changes and he also only talked about the matches up he knew(TvX). Like Nebuchad said above me, you can disagree with him but don't go around blindly calling him biased for no reason other than he made a suggestion you don't agree with.
|
|
|
I like to imagine Socke and HasuObs reading out their contributions in unison.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Better idea - warping lasts longer when you warping at the edge of pylon radius. The closer to pylon you warp - the faster warping lasts
|
I like to know what Zerg is doing with locusts costs minerals if you have no income but 10+ swarmhosts.
Stephano stream showed several times this scenario
|
"I've been saying forever that the MSC should have be nerfed T_T. If think if they're not going to change hallucination being free, then they should change the speed of warp prism and oracles back to what they wore. Fin!
Even toss players will say this, but the oracle buff really came out of nowhere"
[image loading] Acer MMA
What MMA said is very accurate and true imo
|
On February 13 2014 04:24 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from. Better idea - warping lasts longer when you warping at the edge of pylon radius. The closer to pylon you warp - the faster warping lasts
What's the point? Nobody complains about warp-ins at the edge of the pylon being overpowered and it's already impossible to warp up ramps.
|
On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
|
On February 13 2014 05:02 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from. Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes. You don't want a mess of a game with a million special cases and different rules.
I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
|
4713 Posts
On February 13 2014 05:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 05:02 aZealot wrote:On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from. Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on. Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes. I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game.
|
Xenocider: "In general I don't think they should change how Protoss works vs Swarm hosts, but rather change swarm hosts. The problem currently is that if swarm hosts were removed Z would have no proper answer in the late game to either mech or sky toss. The even bigger problem is that WoL suffered a terrible fate (rip sc2) due to Blizzard not nerfing the infestor because Zerg had no other answer in the late game. If blizzard doesn't put in another answer and instead makes Zerg mid-game stronger, and swarm hosts become the meta (which they already have to a greater extent) then HotS will suffer the same fate as WoL"
This is very true. Zerg has no way to battle the super late game compositions of the other races efficiently, especially vs. air-based compositions there's not much zerg can do. (except turtling hard with spores/queens/infestors and swarm hosts)
Swarm host games are terrible to watch. Zerg needs something to maintain positions while being able to battle expensive armies efficiently. Right now, there's no other way than mass transfuse / fungal or the war of attrition.
|
On February 13 2014 05:17 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 05:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 05:02 aZealot wrote:On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from. Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on. Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes. I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha). Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game.
They are adding more complexity to the game.
-Widow mines bonus damage to shields.
-Tempest bonus damage to structures.
-Spore crawler bonus damage to bio units.
-Hellbats have various odd rules.
I don't think this improves the game, although maybe it fixes balance issues.
|
On February 13 2014 04:09 Stress wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote:
I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that Are you being serious? He is one of the few pros who tends to offer the least biased insights and also comes up with different ways to balance/change units. Mineral-cost on locusts should be an option to consider, it wouldn't be anything new, interceptors on Carriers already cost minerals but I guess just even suggesting that somehow makes him bias. QXC was for the most part, in these "interviews", the only pro who went into any detail on the proposed changes and he also only talked about the matches up he knew(TvX). Like Nebuchad said above me, you can disagree with him but don't go around blindly calling him biased for no reason other than he made a suggestion you don't agree with.
Except that there's NO WAY that is working.. You can't "mute" swarm-hosts.. Like really bad approach overall..
Too much biased, too uncaring.. It's like - I don't care Zergy - your problem.. Can't believe you also agree too to that
If I was to think a way to fix them would be the following:
1 - Reduce the unit cost - down to 175/75, or even 150/75
2 - remove the EL upgrade
3 - if any upgrades required for the unit ? - make one on the Hive tech that will increase Locust Max HP by 10 instead of increasing their lifetime by 10 sec
That way the SH will be better at engagements, but will have their downtime.. And by reducing the cost of the unit - you can afford to go forward and lose some of them to snipe some things off fast.. Without necessarily relying on their performance for your whole army instead
|
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote:I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on thatBUT - his "reduce speed on creep and increase off-creep" propose wasn't as bad though ========================================== Still - think I have a good change/idea in mind: 1 - reduce the cost of the SwarmHost - i.e. - instead of 200/100/3 - make it be 150/75/3, or at least 175/75/3 2 - remove - yes - completely remove the EL upgrade.. If any upgrade proves to be "needed" - then make a Hive-one that will give the Locusts +10 life instead of +10 sec lifetime.. Though the cost reduction of the unit should suffice even without that IMO 3 - Increase Viper's abduct casting range, but make it delayed, or "channeling" for like 1.5 sec That way you achieve the effect of SHs being a "Roach 2.0" hit&run unit instead of the "You shall not pass one".. The cost reduction also goes into that direction.. BUT - I also believe that Zerg would need a bit more of a "safer" Viper to counteract the "positional stability" lack - i.e. - what the SH used to do now it's the Viper's duty to "engage" first ========================================== THAT, and the proposed WM change should do It all.. The MSC vision range wouldn't be bad if it wasn't as hard 
Could you please state your opinion in a less "emotional" way; I'd like pros to continue to give their opinions on these patch changes.
|
On February 13 2014 05:29 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 05:17 Destructicon wrote:On February 13 2014 05:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 05:02 aZealot wrote:On February 13 2014 04:09 Grumbels wrote:On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote:
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from. Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on. Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes. I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha). Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game. They are adding more complexity to the game. -Widow mines bonus damage to shields. -Tempest bonus damage to structures. -Spore crawler bonus damage to bio units. -Hellbats have various odd rules. I don't think this improves the game, although maybe it fixes balance issues.
Yeah, I concur. It's just ugly. Although, if it leads to a better game it may be an acceptable trade-off. That remains to be seen though. But, yes, when it comes to WG so many suggestions add little to the game. In fact, they would likely detract.
|
I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
|
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote:
I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
I think so, because that also means you could stack them, and you'd need to introduce a whole new regeneration rate.
I do however like the Idea of acquiring one locust per 15 secs with a max of 4 and it spawning automatically if you have autocast turned on. Makes for some more decision making IMO, but might also be OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
