EPTStill confused about MMA though. He's quite radical with his requests :D
Feb 10 Proposed Changes: Pro Opinions - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TTBest
Germany74 Posts
Still confused about MMA though. He's quite radical with his requests :D | ||
|
Metalcore1993
New Zealand92 Posts
| ||
|
Ossan
14 Posts
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11. | ||
digmouse
China6329 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11. You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again? | ||
|
Jacmert
Canada1709 Posts
On February 12 2014 04:19 avilo wrote: The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself. Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame. The risk is that you've invested heavily into a whole bunch of stalkers which are pretty weak vs bio in the mid to late game, no? | ||
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:30 digmouse wrote: You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again? Cause all the mapmakers quit? | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:34 Jacmert wrote: The risk is that you've invested heavily into a whole bunch of stalkers which are pretty weak vs bio in the mid to late game, no? No, because having some Stalkers in the late game is fine, and Photon Overcharge shuts down most Terran pressure until then. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12177 Posts
| ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
On February 12 2014 05:53 Pontius Pirate wrote: The pros are saying it. I think we should have a "pros offer suggestions on how to fix Swarm Hosts" thread, at least to send Blizzard a message. Here here! | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:49 Nebuchad wrote: Mapmaking is one thing, and it does seem like a lot of the maps we currently have are large cliff maps, probably too many out of the total of maps. But I also don't think it should be nigh impossible to win on a map for a certain race just because it has large cliffs. Map diversity ("we should have less maps with large cliffs") is good, map restriction ("it's impossible to have maps with large cliffs") isn't. Depends. Some conditions for map making always need to be there: need a wallable nat for PvZ, a one ff ramp for PvP, not much surface area for blink allins, reasonable space to defend muta harass, etc etc. | ||
|
digmouse
China6329 Posts
 Well we hit a deadend here. | ||
|
Deletrious
United States458 Posts
| ||
|
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates. | ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:03 stuchiu wrote: We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates. Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive. Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
MSC nerf: Whatever. Vision has never really been a protoss weakness. It will expose the MSC to more damage and thus force some micro. Nothing wrong with that Hydra buff: No one makes Hydralisks if they can help it. Probably because they suck and need a buff. | ||
|
weiliem
2071 Posts
| ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:03 Deletrious wrote: So hydralisk out of the gate DPS jumps 14.5 to 16? And final upgrade DPS 18.1 to 20. That seems like a lot of damage, surprised people in this thread don't seem to be talking about it more. 10% increase in dps is really subtle though. The tank got a similar increase and I'm not sure if people really appreciated the difference. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:10 ROOTiaguz wrote: 10% increase in dps is really subtle though. The tank got a similar increase and I'm not sure if people really appreciated the difference. Its actually better than the current +1. Its basically a free +1 upgrade right out of the gate, so its better for ZvP Hydra pressure into transition builds. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
NOTHING stops the soul train | ||
| ||
