• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:20
CEST 07:20
KST 14:20
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202530RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams2Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 512 users

Blizzard's thoughts on Swarm Hosts - Page 34

Forum Index > SC2 General
1050 CommentsPost a Reply
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 53 Next
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
May 08 2014 19:07 GMT
#661
by the way I'd love to see videos of SH redesigns.
If anybody fluent with the editor is trying out stuff, I'd love to see it
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 19:09 GMT
#662
On May 09 2014 03:41 plogamer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:10 Cheren wrote:
Overall, vipers pulling everything besides Brood Lords makes as much sense lore-wise as Hydras doing 12 damage to everything but 16 damage to biological air units. So you have to ask yourself, which is better for the game? And you realize that the former fucks up a lot less shit.


They're both bad for much the same reasons.

An overall Hydralisk buff would be much better at getting what they want wherein you give a nerf to Spore Crawlers (allowing Mutalisk play to come back without breaking Muta base race scenarios in PvZ) and compensating with a general buff to Hydralisks.

It would make more sense to give Hydralisks 14 damage overall and an increased speed movement on creep. That way Muta players can harass far bases but the Hydralisk player can "hold" a tight cluster of bases. All while maintaining the same generalist damage Hydralisks are known for. It would also make it so 3/3 Hydralisks are not as gimped vs 3/3 marines in the late game while allowing them better late game mobility assuming proper creep spread.

And if this buff increases Hydralisk play in all matchups, I don't think people would be upset either. But right now, with the "+bio air" stats, its just awkward.


It's not any more awkward than spored with + bio, units with different damage for air and for ground targets, etc. etc.

The + bio air is probably one of the most surgical balance changes to date in that it only affects 1 match up.


Spore Crawler is +Bio and not +Bio Air, it just so happens that Spore Crawlers only hit air. But if you lift a ground unit that is biological with a phoenix (say you mind control a phoenix and use it to pick up zealots by spore crawlers, the +bio damage still holds true while an overly specific +bio air would not hold true)
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Shellshock
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States97276 Posts
May 08 2014 19:15 GMT
#663
Imagine how strong hydra spore phoenix 2v2 teams are going to be vs zerg teams
Moderatorhttp://i.imgur.com/U4xwqmD.png
TL+ Member
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-05-08 19:19:28
May 08 2014 19:18 GMT
#664
On May 09 2014 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 03:41 plogamer wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:10 Cheren wrote:
Overall, vipers pulling everything besides Brood Lords makes as much sense lore-wise as Hydras doing 12 damage to everything but 16 damage to biological air units. So you have to ask yourself, which is better for the game? And you realize that the former fucks up a lot less shit.


They're both bad for much the same reasons.

An overall Hydralisk buff would be much better at getting what they want wherein you give a nerf to Spore Crawlers (allowing Mutalisk play to come back without breaking Muta base race scenarios in PvZ) and compensating with a general buff to Hydralisks.

It would make more sense to give Hydralisks 14 damage overall and an increased speed movement on creep. That way Muta players can harass far bases but the Hydralisk player can "hold" a tight cluster of bases. All while maintaining the same generalist damage Hydralisks are known for. It would also make it so 3/3 Hydralisks are not as gimped vs 3/3 marines in the late game while allowing them better late game mobility assuming proper creep spread.

And if this buff increases Hydralisk play in all matchups, I don't think people would be upset either. But right now, with the "+bio air" stats, its just awkward.


It's not any more awkward than spored with + bio, units with different damage for air and for ground targets, etc. etc.

The + bio air is probably one of the most surgical balance changes to date in that it only affects 1 match up.


Spore Crawler is +Bio and not +Bio Air, it just so happens that Spore Crawlers only hit air. But if you lift a ground unit that is biological with a phoenix (say you mind control a phoenix and use it to pick up zealots by spore crawlers, the +bio damage still holds true while an overly specific +bio air would not hold true)


I think if properly implemented (with a different attack animation for example), such attacks make quite sense.
Especially on the hydralisk, since antiair is one of its most distinct differences to the roach.

Edit: not that I believe blizzard will walk that extra mile of creating another animation/projectile (though it wouldn't be too hard). But they did it with the queen, so who knows.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 19:24 GMT
#665
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations.

Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better.


Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair.

OR

We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0.



Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.


I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.

Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.

The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.


The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.

We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.


Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.

And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)


The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.


Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.


Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.

Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.

Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
May 08 2014 19:33 GMT
#666
On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better.


Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair.

OR

We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0.



Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.


I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.

Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.

The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.


The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.

We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.


Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.

And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)


The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.


Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.


Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.

Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.

Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.


Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 19:53 GMT
#667
On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair.

OR

We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0.



Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.


I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.

Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.

The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.


The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.

We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.


Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.

And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)


The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.


Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.


Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.

Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.

Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.


Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.


No personal disagreements from me.

I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it.

But personally, I do agree with you.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
ILOVEWAR
Profile Joined November 2011
Netherlands104 Posts
May 08 2014 19:55 GMT
#668
I really misses the times of TvT WOL...
Tanks vs Tanks....

Now its SH vs SH...

The true hard counter was air...

oh and nukes (See the epic game of Boxer vs Jjaki?)

It seems very boring but for the players is very interesting chess game.

I wonder why nobody is using banelingbombs/zerglings on the SH? Its extremely hard to pull of but game ending move. I always used nukes or Yamato against tanks though its very hard to pull off but game ending move always. Ive tried the zerglings/banelings also against SH several times SUCCESFULLY. Why focus on the "damage-output" if you focus on the unit who causes the damage?

Less effective is the "cutting the supply-line" tactic. Kill the hatcheries and kill overlords (do not kill drones).

Im happy that people are using SH massively, keep using it and I keep winning
If you dont like war, go play tetris...
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 20:04 GMT
#669
On May 09 2014 04:55 ILOVEWAR wrote:
I really misses the times of TvT WOL...
Tanks vs Tanks....

Now its SH vs SH...

The true hard counter was air...

oh and nukes (See the epic game of Boxer vs Jjaki?)

It seems very boring but for the players is very interesting chess game.

I wonder why nobody is using banelingbombs/zerglings on the SH? Its extremely hard to pull of but game ending move. I always used nukes or Yamato against tanks though its very hard to pull off but game ending move always. Ive tried the zerglings/banelings also against SH several times SUCCESFULLY. Why focus on the "damage-output" if you focus on the unit who causes the damage?

Less effective is the "cutting the supply-line" tactic. Kill the hatcheries and kill overlords (do not kill drones).

Im happy that people are using SH massively, keep using it and I keep winning


Its partially the Spore Buff (well, majorly)

Other that Broods all zerg air is short range. Try doing overlord drops into a line of spores and Swarm Hosts and you'll see what I mean.

The Air switch in TvT had Yamato + PDD + Vikings to allow them to fight away from a turret line. But even without that, the air fight was constant in TvT. A Viking advantage means you can push your tanks forward while they couldn't, meaning it was never a "BC switch" but a steady progression into air play. You went Vikings to get the sight advantage. At some point you have so many vikings that PDD is really what makes or breaks the engagement. You then get to the point that BC's are needed to break the air stall and give you a way to keep the push going without a-moving into a line of tanks.

SH does not need sight. It does not need air support. And in ZvZ, a spore line is better anti-air than any other option in the game. Which leads to abduct shenanigans.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Pontius Pirate
Profile Blog Joined August 2013
United States1557 Posts
May 08 2014 20:16 GMT
#670
I'd like to see Spore Crawlers do splash in some teeny radius - think somewhere along the lines of .25 - so that they stomp large muta flocks that try to focus-fire them without proper magic boxing, but they're still unlikely to get much splash in against Brood Lords. It would have the benefit of forcing Phoenix harass to be slightly more carefully controlled, although not to any crazy excess.
"I had to close the door so my parents wouldn't judge me." - ZombieGrub during the ShitfaceTradeTV stream
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-05-08 20:30:06
May 08 2014 20:28 GMT
#671
On May 09 2014 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:
[quote]
Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.


I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.

Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.

The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.


The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.

We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.


Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.

And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)


The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.


Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.


Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.

Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.

Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.


Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.


No personal disagreements from me.

I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it.

But personally, I do agree with you.


oh yeah, that is of course true. Yet, looking bad =/= making a boring game, imo. Which people often do when the pace of the game is strategically very slow to begin with, so that Captain Careful (=the proper gameplay if you can't handle as much as the best can) makes it underwhelming.
Frex
Profile Joined March 2012
Finland888 Posts
May 08 2014 20:38 GMT
#672
It won´t be enough. The games that involve swarm host are getting way too long despite killing the "stalemate" situation when we think about tournaments with bo3, bo5 and bo7.

Swarm host games are not benefitting players, casters or most of the viewers. It is not just healthy in any situation, when a single game in best of 3 lasts more than a soccer game.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 20:43 GMT
#673
On May 09 2014 05:28 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.

Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.

The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.


The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.

We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.


Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.

And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)


The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.


Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.


Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.

Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.

Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.


Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.


No personal disagreements from me.

I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it.

But personally, I do agree with you.


oh yeah, that is of course true. Yet, looking bad =/= making a boring game, imo. Which people often do when the pace of the game is strategically very slow to begin with, so that Captain Careful (=the proper gameplay if you can't handle as much as the best can) makes it underwhelming.



I have the same opinions in the whole striking vs grappling in MMA.

Striking is more fun to watch, but grappling is the bigger skill tester. But I don't MMA to be 15 minutes of two dudes hugging each other. You need a bit of both, but it's a very hard line to tow.

What we want are games that look like they could last forever, but one big play ends it. We want the potential without actually having to grind through hour+ long games.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Rainmansc
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands216 Posts
May 08 2014 20:46 GMT
#674
On May 09 2014 05:38 Frex wrote:
It won´t be enough. The games that involve swarm host are getting way too long despite killing the "stalemate" situation when we think about tournaments with bo3, bo5 and bo7.

Swarm host games are not benefitting players, casters or most of the viewers. It is not just healthy in any situation, when a single game in best of 3 lasts more than a soccer game.

We all know that. The problem is that zergs need SH to even compete with mech terran and P mid-lategame...
B-rye88
Profile Joined October 2013
Canada168 Posts
May 08 2014 21:10 GMT
#675
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?

A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.

Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 21:16 GMT
#676
On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?

A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.

Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.


Well, if you're just going for micro.

You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence.

This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
B-rye88
Profile Joined October 2013
Canada168 Posts
May 08 2014 21:27 GMT
#677
On May 09 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?

A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.

Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.


Well, if you're just going for micro.

You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence.

This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players.


Would work. Not JUST going for micro though. Looking to allow the unit to actually break a turtle position (an attack of fully 'charged' hosts + army) instead of forcing the opponent to remain turtled.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 21:36 GMT
#678
On May 09 2014 06:27 B-rye88 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?

A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.

Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.


Well, if you're just going for micro.

You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence.

This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players.


Would work. Not JUST going for micro though. Looking to allow the unit to actually break a turtle position (an attack of fully 'charged' hosts + army) instead of forcing the opponent to remain turtled.


I know what you're asking for. And I agree that it would be a neat idea. Energy could do the same thing (so long as it was low enough energy so you can have "regular" locust production even at near 0 energy). I'm not sure about giving the SH a burst potential would be good for the non-ZvZ matchups without giving P and T a way to not outright die to triple the number of locus they're used to dealing with. But I do like the idea.

The reason for my suggestion is I like the concept of your idea where players need to be more active with SH and I think it would help fix a lot of the problems in ZvZ and even make it so only top level zergs can handle late game ZvX matchups. It would turn the SH into a very high skill ceiling unit.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
MonkeyKing_slk
Profile Joined October 2012
United States16 Posts
May 08 2014 21:39 GMT
#679
I doubt about the change on hydra. Clearly for now muta cannot directly fight hydra. Muta use high mobility to attack things that are not protected by hydra, or eat small group of hydra. With this buff everything still remain the same.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 08 2014 21:43 GMT
#680
On May 09 2014 06:39 MonkeyKing_slk wrote:
I doubt about the change on hydra. Clearly for now muta cannot directly fight hydra. Muta use high mobility to attack things that are not protected by hydra, or eat small group of hydra. With this buff everything still remain the same.


Do you think an on-creep speed increase would be better?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 53 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 40m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 257
ProTech68
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 264
Snow 171
Noble 63
Sacsri 37
Icarus 6
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1082
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox534
Other Games
summit1g6284
Maynarde161
RuFF_SC262
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1284
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH421
• practicex 46
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt375
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
4h 40m
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 4h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.