|
Canada11498 Posts
On February 12 2014 10:55 ejozl wrote:
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.
Well if you think of the locust as an attack and not a unit, it's not too weird. That is the swarm host itself moves fast on creep slow off creep making it easier to reposition, but it's attack works better off creep. So creep works as lines of reinforcements, to move back and forth to reposition the same as always, but faster locust off creep incentivizes players to push out beyond creep for best attacking results. It might not fix SH, but it is a rather intriguing idea.
|
On February 12 2014 11:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 10:55 ejozl wrote:
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. Well if you think of the locust as an attack and not a unit, it's not too weird. That is the swarm host itself moves fast on creep slow off creep making it easier to reposition, but it's attack works better off creep. So creep works as lines of reinforcements, to move back and forth to reposition the same as always, but faster locust off creep incentivizes players to push out beyond creep for best attacking results. It might not fix SH, but it is a rather intriguing idea.
isnt it better to just remove enduring locust, remove creep benefits to locusts and make the swarmhost faster overall (burrow/unborrow and movementwise)? I dont really mind qxcs ideas I think theyre solid, but the locusts being faster off creep seems a bit counterintuitive to me.
|
I've always believed that the Swarm Host should operate more like Queens with larva injects. To capitalize on larva, you have to be on top of your injects. If you have an offensively-placed SH, then you should have to activate it after a cooldown.
While some players will still be able to use it effectively, that number reduces significantly across skill, and time during the game and what is going on simultaneously. It won't be like the current "set it and forget it" attitude.
|
Just wanted to say that I like the revised format. Pro players are naturally biased towards their own race, so it's useful to see their responses grouped by race to each change.
|
The biggest things I took from this is that blizz should buff corruptors, and Snute speaking justice about target firing with tempest instead of a moving at locusts. I remember when he played a swarm host style vs alicia in wcs am season one. It was a damn good game!
Also the video from socke and hasu was priceless
|
On February 12 2014 11:38 divito wrote:
I've always believed that the Swarm Host should operate more like Queens with larva injects. To capitalize on larva, you have to be on top of your injects. If you have an offensively-placed SH, then you should have to activate it after a cooldown.
While some players will still be able to use it effectively, that number reduces significantly across skill, and time during the game and what is going on simultaneously. It won't be like the current "set it and forget it" attitude.
Ya, maybe even make them so that they only can shoot once when burrowed. The player would have to unburrow and then re burrow for them to be able to shoot again.
|
I have a question to anyone who will read.
What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but
1. remove the warpgate technologie.
(no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
What would you think about this changes?
|
On February 12 2014 12:20 NiXX88 wrote:
I have a question to anyone who will read.
What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but
1. remove the warpgate technologie.
(no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
What would you think about this changes?
I think you are a genius, why did nobody before consider that?
|
On February 12 2014 12:20 NiXX88 wrote:
I have a question to anyone who will read.
What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but
1. remove the warpgate technologie.
(no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
What would you think about this changes?
Terrible and would totally break the game. Warpgate isn't going anywhere, even though the hive mind have all decided its it worse than drowning puppies.
|
Canada11498 Posts
Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3.
|
On February 12 2014 12:27 Falling wrote:
Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3.
Yeah, its weird how they won't fulfill the request to "redesign 1/3 of all multiplayer matches," because a bunch of people assume it would make the game better.
|
Canada11498 Posts
Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
|
On February 12 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 12:27 Falling wrote:
Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3. Yeah, its weird how they won't fulfill the request to "redesign 1/3 of all multiplayer matches," because a bunch of people assume it would make the game better.
For $60 per copy of WOL, they came up with three entire races. Asking for less than 1/3 of that content for 2/3 of that price doesn't really seem all that unreasonable. Unless you're the head of accounting and you're looking at the PS3/Xbox DLC pricing model with eyes filled with dollar signs. Then, doing work when you could not be doing work but making roughly the same amount of money does, in fact, start to sound very unreasonable.
|
On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote:
Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi)
|
On February 12 2014 13:02 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote:
Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly. It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi)
You've got that backwards. Proxy Zealots would take the same amount of time to make (or longer). It's non-proxy Zealots that would take less time to make (or the same as they do now).
|
On February 12 2014 13:05 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:02 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote:
Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly. It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi) You've got that backwards. Proxy Zealots would take the same amount of time to make (or longer). It's non-proxy Zealots that would take less time to make (or the same as they do now).
I am assuming that the time on the warp gates themselves would be unchanged but if you nerfed them then yes it could work I was just assuming you were buffing the standard gateway to below that.
|
Canada11498 Posts
Yeah, take same timings on gateway, but make warp-gates take longer to produce from. Sacrifice time because you have such a huge advantage by proxy placing units wherever you have a pylon or a warp-prism. It would make all those warp timings weaker, but give a slight edge to defending when you switch over. Or whatever would be balanced- the numbers would have to be tweaked. But Blizzard never bit on that one.
|
nice i got to actually read them all
|
Starting to love the Pro feed back after a balance change hits the test maps. Though a few of the answers on certain NA pros are a bit biased and have to disagree with. Keep these coming. Wonder if one of the English content creators over in Korea could ask some of those pros on how they feel, since the main issue is in Korea at the highest level, not as much it seems in EU and NA since WCS seems to have a good racial balance.
|
On February 12 2014 08:09 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:03 stuchiu wrote:On February 12 2014 08:01 digmouse wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 stuchiu wrote:On February 12 2014 07:30 digmouse wrote: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.
But the BW win rates continued to fluctuate. I don't believe balancing through maps means neutering all strategies. I think it means having a variety of maps built on some fundamentals that allow for races to explore their arsenal in the context that map provides. The key issue is that no single type of map dominates in terms of the numbers of that map in the map pool and for too long. Therefore, having 2 - 3 blink favoured maps in the map pool may be a problem in TvP. However, having one blink favoured map may not be (and the imbalance on that map therefore may not affect overall race balance).
I think map restrictions in SC2 tend to be over-stated. There are really, as far as I can see, only two real requirements for a map in SC2. That there be a small ramp into the main, and that there be a reasonable choke or ramp into the natural. The third may be the requirement for a third that is reasonably close to the main and natural (this was especially the case for P in WOL, however given the MSC and PO and faster P tech in HOTS it may not be as hard a requirement as it was).
Everything else is open to exploration. Consider, for example, Whirlwhind which was a huge map with a lot of wide open space and large ramps into every expansion bar the main. But, we had some great pro games on that map (and, I personally, played some real fun ladder games on that map). Safe uniform maps are boring maps and will lead to stale gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
