EPTBlizzard's thoughts on Swarm Hosts - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On May 07 2014 02:30 Noocta wrote: But.. WHERE ? Seriously, I haven't seen Swarm Host being used outside of the stalemate type of games. At all. Why not changing the cause of the problem instead of always going around it.... swarmhosts in themselves are in not way the cause of this "problem". | ||
|
CutTheEnemy
Canada373 Posts
You know how it went. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On May 08 2014 10:07 NEEDZMOAR wrote: swarmhosts in themselves are in not way the cause of this "problem". The problem is counter to SH. Zergs have some problems with it, but buffing their AOE can cause problems to other matchups. So passively buffing Zerg siege air can solve SH problem a bit | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
Clearly he doesn't. His location says USA but he said KM for some weird reason. Also, I think lore is probably not the highest priority in the situation here. >< I mean, I guess it would be cool if they could dovetail fixing the game with lore lol | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 08 2014 11:04 tshi wrote: Clearly he doesn't. His location says USA but he said KM for some weird reason. Also, I think lore is probably not the highest priority in the situation here. >< I mean, I guess it would be cool if they could dovetail fixing the game with lore lol Its not about expanding the lore--its about having a logical reasoning for the fix that is whithin the boundaries of the lore. For example, emp-tipped widow mine. EMP can fit a sniper rifle in SC2 when it used to need a science vessel, so its not impossible for emp tipped widow mines to exist. Phoenixes can't carry massive units, too heavy. That makes sense. Spore Crawlers +damage to bio since the acid spores is more corrosive to life forms than metal, not impossible at all and we already had +damage to bio in the archon, so its not making up something new. abduct can work on all units, except the broodlord is not a very holistic and elegant fix to something. Why wouldn't the viper be able to grab a broodlord? it can grab a fucking mothership, what's stopping it? Its about having hollistic changes that fit within the paremeters of the board. | ||
|
UltiBahamut
United States102 Posts
Will be interesting how that change will effect the ZvZ metagame. Probably bring out a LOT of muta players again. But that hydra buff and the still 30 dmg per shot from spores i think will still hold it off pretty well. Just will probably need 4 spores to cover the base instead of 3. AND i think this will help a lot when it comes to muta vs swarm hosts. I love swarm hosts but i just kind of laugh when i see mutas or Brood lords right now because spores just tear them apart (Yay vipers). I essentially can set up an army anywhere with spores due to the underused creep highways with overlords while my queens pass over to drop creep tumors. ALSO as someone who loves to roach/hydra vs bio terrans. I would love to see the increase in damage vs bio! I think it could actually allow my hydras to power through 3/3 marauders with medivacs. Or at least trade somewhat effectively instead of melting as they do now :c Either way i think that this change on both should go through haha. I am obviously biased, but i do think all in all it will help the game overall. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On May 08 2014 11:31 UltiBahamut wrote: Mmmm, dropping the damage of the spores to 30 a shot will change it from 3 shotting a mutalisk to 5. (4 hits deal 120 which is the hp of a muta. But i'm assuming that the Mutas with their fast regen will get at least 1 hp back before that hit lands) Will be interesting how that change will effect the ZvZ metagame. Probably bring out a LOT of muta players again. But that hydra buff and the still 30 dmg per shot from spores i think will still hold it off pretty well. Just will probably need 4 spores to cover the base instead of 3. AND i think this will help a lot when it comes to muta vs swarm hosts. I love swarm hosts but i just kind of laugh when i see mutas or Brood lords right now because spores just tear them apart (Yay vipers). I essentially can set up an army anywhere with spores due to the underused creep highways with overlords while my queens pass over to drop creep tumors. ALSO as someone who loves to roach/hydra vs bio terrans. I would love to see the increase in damage vs bio! I think it could actually allow my hydras to power through 3/3 marauders with medivacs. Or at least trade somewhat effectively instead of melting as they do now :c Either way i think that this change on both should go through haha. I am obviously biased, but i do think all in all it will help the game overall. If hydra damage vs bio is increased it will only be vs air targets, so unfortunately the damage vs. bio terran won't change. | ||
|
Uberduder
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On May 07 2014 04:24 Prime Directive wrote: The best solution i've read is removing unit collision for locusts. Opposing swarmhosts would just wipe each other out very quickly but it doesn't remove the swarmhost's utility versus other units or matchups very much. haha that would be hilarious. Imagine someone micros locusts so that they all stack on top of each other. One unassuming locust enters enemy base and.. tada! 40 locusts out of nowhere! Talk about the opposite of "swarm." | ||
|
UltiBahamut
United States102 Posts
On May 08 2014 11:38 -NegativeZero- wrote: If hydra damage vs bio is increased it will only be vs air targets, so unfortunately the damage vs. bio terran won't change. Ah yeah. you're right. I had to go back to read it. I missed that part :'( | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 08 2014 12:18 usethis2 wrote: haha that would be hilarious. Imagine someone micros locusts so that they all stack on top of each other. One unassuming locust enters enemy base and.. tada! 40 locusts out of nowhere! Talk about the opposite of "swarm." Agreed, that would be dynamic and interesting to watch and micro. Anything to add more micro potential have some merits in them (as long as they abide by the fundamental infrastructure of the game). | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Whenever they are around, you just need to avoid locusts as opposed to ever engaging. Not very fun  . | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On May 07 2014 05:47 purakushi wrote: - When planted on creep, nydus worms cost less and don't globally shout. (nydus canal) - Crawlers can only be repositioned a limited number of times. - Some SH redesign. - Protoss redesign - Economy change - Clumping fix (?) - general changes to make SC2 more dynamic and units feel more unique and have presence - ??? - Profits. - Nydus: Sounds reasonable - Asking a player to remember which crawler has been uprooted how many times seems a bit too much. - Protoss redesign is not going to happen even in LOTV if what you mean by "redesign" has to do with warp gates. - Economy change: How?? - Clumping fix: Again, not going to happen, and I do agree with Blizzard on this one. If clumping is disadvantage for a player, pros would/should avoid clumping units. Increasing collison size of units will frustrate game play (see: Thor pathing) and will make maps even bigger. - general changes to make SC2 more dynamic and units feel more unique and have presence: Stay health, be productive, and love thy neighbors.... | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 08 2014 13:28 usethis2 wrote: - Nydus: Sounds reasonable - Asking a player to remember which crawler has been uprooted how many times seems a bit too much. - Protoss redesign is not going to happen even in LOTV if what you mean by "redesign" has to do with warp gates. - Economy change: How?? - Clumping fix: Again, not going to happen, and I do agree with Blizzard on this one. If clumping is disadvantage for a player, pros would/should avoid clumping units. Increasing collison size of units will frustrate game play (see: Thor pathing) and will make maps even bigger. - general changes to make SC2 more dynamic and units feel more unique and have presence: Stay health, be productive, and love thy neighbors.... I think that ALL SC2 units CAN be interesting and dynamic to play and watch w/ just a few minor tweaks and add-ons. There are MANY creative approach that you can go through in the game, namely my suggestion regarding Abduct in earlier pages and the Uproot suggested above that I was agreeing with. The reason why Blizzard don't exactly take those approaches is either or both of the two upcoming reasons: 1. They haven't thought about it. This means that their creative/design team is bad that even people like us can make suggestions. Or it just shows how much they really care about the game (not a lot). 2. Its deliberately trying to appeal to a "wider" range of audience. See how David Kim dismissed the micromanagement video by LaLush by saying that casuals won't understand those intricate unique situations and how only pros can understand them. That's simply insulting the intelligence of SC2 players. In the end, unless they invest heavily in the next SC2 expansion or drastically change their design team, nothing discernible will happen in LotV. But this thread have offered a lot of interesting and feasible ideals that makes me regain faith in the gaming community that wants positive change for what is supposedly the leading RTS game. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On May 07 2014 07:39 Kupon3ss wrote: 2 minerals per locusts alongside reducing their cost by 10 or so is quite reasonable. Think of it this way, 1 set of spawns per 25 seconds is about 2.5 spawns per every minute. This means that you can fully sustain 20 locusts at 100 minerals/minute. Which is honestly quite trivial by the time you actually have 20 locusts. It's not reasonable at all because it means all your SH become completely useless once you run out of resources. Imagine marines stop shooting once you run out of minerals. Reasonable? Energy-based solution could be a reasonable one but that will take a whole new balancing work. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 08 2014 13:51 usethis2 wrote: It's not reasonable at all because it means all your SH become completely useless once you run out of resources. Imagine marines stop shooting once you run out of minerals. Reasonable? Energy-based solution could be a reasonable one but that will take a whole new balancing work. Carriers work in a similar fashion, once you run out of minerals and your intercepters are dead, they're useless. Worked the same way with reavers in BW - they couldn't shoot if you didn't have the minerals to buy the shot. I don't see an issue. On May 08 2014 13:41 Xiphos wrote: I think that ALL SC2 units CAN be interesting and dynamic to play and watch w/ just a few minor tweaks and add-ons. There are MANY creative approach that you can go through in the game, namely my suggestion regarding Abduct in earlier pages and the Uproot suggested above that I was agreeing with. The reason why Blizzard don't exactly take those approaches is either or both of the two upcoming reasons: 1. They haven't thought about it. This means that their creative/design team is bad that even people like us can make suggestions. Or it just shows how much they really care about the game (not a lot). 2. Its deliberately trying to appeal to a "wider" range of audience. See how David Kim dismissed the micromanagement video by LaLush by saying that casuals won't understand those intricate unique situations and how only pros can understand them. That's simply insulting the intelligence of SC2 players. In the end, unless they invest heavily in the next SC2 expansion or drastically change their design team, nothing discernible will happen in LotV. But this thread have offered a lot of interesting and feasible ideals that makes me regain faith in the gaming community that wants positive change for what is supposedly the leading RTS game. Your first point is utterly ridiculous. To assume a limited number of people have thought of everything, even if it's their job, when comparing to a community with thousand of players, is quite simply, ridiculous. | ||
|
Rasias
Germany51 Posts
How about: When you've a Nydus Network you can morph Creep Tumors into Nydus Worms without the gas cost. This would allow the Nydus to get more use by connecting bases etc, but wouldn't allow Zergs to spam Worms all over the place. Also nice would be if the number of units exiting a nydus would be equal to the "size" it has when in a transporter.. so you could spawn 8 lings out of a nydus at once but only 4 roaches, 1 (?) ultra.. that sort of thing. Right now sending small units through a nydus is just painful.. one ling at a time and if there's any unit on the other side you just lose one ling at a time *g* | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 08 2014 14:37 FabledIntegral wrote: Carriers work in a similar fashion, once you run out of minerals and your intercepters are dead, they're useless. Worked the same way with reavers in BW - they couldn't shoot if you didn't have the minerals to buy the shot. I don't see an issue. Your first point is utterly ridiculous. To assume a limited number of people have thought of everything, even if it's their job, when comparing to a community with thousand of players, is quite simply, ridiculous. Not everything but enough to impress the community. Words like "boring" and "not fun to play" shouldn't even be in a player's vocab after a true triple A game's beta. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 08 2014 14:37 FabledIntegral wrote: Carriers work in a similar fashion, once you run out of minerals and your intercepters are dead, they're useless. Worked the same way with reavers in BW - they couldn't shoot if you didn't have the minerals to buy the shot. I don't see an issue. But interceptors don't kill themselves automatically. That is the difference between Locus and interceptors. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i2.minus.com/idKJOHIciRf0E.jpg)
