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?
Sorry, but if you posted your solutions in the other thread I might have missed it. I agree with your point, but if they are intent on nerfing MsC & Blink those were just my suggestions.
BTW I don't expect Terrans to SimCity their entire cliff but if High Ground Blink Range was reduced from 8 to 6, then wouldn't Stalkers have to take more damage before Blinking in or out? What if your Depot Wall was near the cliff and just far enough inside that Stalkers couldn't pick away at it from the bottom, and forces them to Blink in and target either the Bunker(s), Depots, and repairing SCVs if they want to break through? What if you have 2+ WMs prepared because you knew that Stalkers could only Blink into a certain area without Detection?
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?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
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.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
I am of the opinion that Swarm Host is a horrendous mistake as it is completely not-fun to play against. So I guess it's good that they're looking into a solution... but what they come up with is totally off the mark.
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?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
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.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
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?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
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.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
Well, that escalated quickly.
I'm just saying one of the worst things people do when it comes to SC2 is say things like "You can't do this"
"Imbalanced" maps are fine in certain contexts - namely, minor leagues and/or team leagues, especially if they have a proelague-style format. Proleague is in fact the perfect testing ground for imbalanced and extreme maps, because if it turns out broken in a specific matchup, that can be easily avoided altogether until the map itself is figured out.
If Daedalus had been introduced in Proleague it would still be unchanged, and maybe it could even have helped in evolving the game further imo. Similar things have happened before (Arkanoid anyone?).
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?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
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.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
Well, that escalated quickly.
I'm just saying one of the worst things people do when it comes to SC2 is say things like "You can't do this"
I might agree with you if you brought this up elsewhere, but Teoita's got the right of it. As far as premier competitions go -- this is one of those things you just can't do.
Is it good that it's one of those things? Probably not, so fingers crossed for LOTV.
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?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Oh, we're still around. It's just not much motivation to create maps because the likely hood of them ever getting used is slim to none. So many of us just sit around doing jack shit until TL has a mapping contest.
On February 12 2014 09:05 Bumalate wrote: Qxc had some great analysis. Interesting to think about.
Yeah I agree, I think this:
Make locusts move faster off creep and slower on creep. This would turn the swarm host into a more aggressively oriented. It would be stronger on the offense, weaker behind static defense and closer to the action in general.
is probably one of the best ideas about removing swarmhosts turtle strength while still keeping them viable
I agreed with the majority of Scarlett's comments. If you want to nerf the swarmhost, you gotta show the corruptor some love or give them more viable mid game openings that aren't easily defended with MSC.
Make locusts move faster off creep and slower on creep. This would turn the swarm host into a more aggressively oriented. It would be stronger on the offense, weaker behind static defense and closer to the action in general.
is probably one of the best ideas about removing swarmhosts turtle strength while still keeping them viable
I've thought that too, but it seems to go against the overall race mechanic. That said, it is worth a shot (if a SH change is really required - I still think a period of wait and see may be best; even if the SH is a unit that is difficult to love).
I've also thought that the SH needs to be more aesthetically pleasing. It is not a big change in the grand scheme of things. But the SH and locusts looks so damn ugly and boring. The only pleasing aspect of the locusts are those little claws at the front and when they spit at you. But these can be improved. You want something that screams terror. It will help.
When are we going to nerf hosts, and that joke of a unit that is the voidray?
Void Rays are so strong the only way to beat them is mass static + viper + anti air, and the only way to get that is turtling on hosts, which is boring as fuck to play.
lol @ the blink reactions from the Ts and Zs. Zs: "Uh, this probably impacts PvT more than PvZ, we don't really see this." Ts: "Don't know about the other match-ups but sure as hell don't impact PvT."
Blink Stalker all ins are so hard to deal with. I think changing blink timing is kind of ridiculous. However, the widow mine upgrade will do heaps against all-ins from Protoss early game. I like the idea of the Mothership core nerf, It truly gives Protoss a risk factor in going for an all-in. I hope this change goes through!
qxc's fix is good, but it's weird to give a Zerg unit less movement on creep. You can just give Locust the standard 2.25 movespeed with no creep modifier. This is precisely the median between it's movespeed on and off speed also, makes perfect sense.
EPT
Well we hit a deadend here.
