EPTbut does it make too much sense?
Blizzard's thoughts on Swarm Hosts - Page 37
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
but does it make too much sense? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Its fixing a problematic late game unit by making it more similar to the mechanics already present in the game. As a fix, its elegant as fuck. Suddenly you not only have to care about SH positioning, but of Locust control as well. And it does it without adding weird ammunition costs money tricks, it doesn't have weird corner case tweaks. Its literally suggesting that making things the same as it was before and removing a new rally system would fix a problem unit without changing the game itself. Its wonderful. | ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On May 10 2014 07:47 y0su wrote: I wonder what it would look like if locusts followed the same rally rules as every other unit (move command)... Just requiring the player to a-move the locusts could have a big impact. one of the coolest ideas on the swarm host i've ever read honestly | ||
|
StarMoon
Canada682 Posts
We need a catchy disparaging name for these horrible units. | ||
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 10 2014 02:10 Whitewing wrote: It's not mutalisks alone that make PvZ hard, and as of last month, it was 52/48 in favor of zerg (which is not way over, but it was 57/43 in favor of zerg in ZvT). (Data from Aligulac). Mutalisks require such a hard response from protoss: they have to drop what they're doing and go straight to mass pheonix ASAP. Zergs abuse this by going muta into swarmhost (while all the toss gas is going into phoenix instead of colossus), or swarmhost into muta, or various tech switches into mutalisk. Protoss can't robo expand anymore because of muta: all builds that take a third must incorporate a stargate in some way or they outright die to mutalisks. Not to mention that if you scout the spire, it might just be corrupters to kill your colossi, and if you start going phoenix against a roach/hydra/corrupter bust, you're probably going to die. As Protoss, you should be able to tell if they're going muta or corrupter. If they've already gone roach/hydra for a while, they're not going to suddenly switch to a ton of mutas, because then they're just going to roll over and die, given that you have 3 bases already well established, a huge army, and tons of gates to warp in defensive stalkers as you push across the map and kill them. if they don't have a roach/hydra army, they probably aren't going corrupter/ling. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
On May 10 2014 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote: Its fixing a problematic late game unit by making it more similar to the mechanics already present in the game. As a fix, its elegant as fuck. Suddenly you not only have to care about SH positioning, but of Locust control as well. And it does it without adding weird ammunition costs money tricks, it doesn't have weird corner case tweaks. Its literally suggesting that making things the same as it was before and removing a new rally system would fix a problem unit without changing the game itself. Its wonderful. That's.. a bingo! Implement immediately.  | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On May 10 2014 09:43 FabledIntegral wrote: As Protoss, you should be able to tell if they're going muta or corrupter. If they've already gone roach/hydra for a while, they're not going to suddenly switch to a ton of mutas, because then they're just going to roll over and die, given that you have 3 bases already well established, a huge army, and tons of gates to warp in defensive stalkers as you push across the map and kill them. if they don't have a roach/hydra army, they probably aren't going corrupter/ling. Zergs do it all the time. Do you remember the old DRG style of going mass roach into mutas? Zergs go roach hydra for a little while, then will pop out 10 mutas at once (which isn't that hard to do off 3 or 4 bases). You then have about 1 minute before the ball has doubled in size. You also most likely aren't maxed out with a ton of army, because zergs do this after engaging you and trading. Meanwhile, they throw down a ton of static D when they switch and prepare to base trade you, and it's very tough to win a basetrade vs. a big ball of mutalisks. They'll even hide the mutas in a corner until they've got enough to be a real threat. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 10 2014 15:25 Whitewing wrote: Zergs do it all the time. Do you remember the old DRG style of going mass roach into mutas? Zergs go roach hydra for a little while, then will pop out 10 mutas at once (which isn't that hard to do off 3 or 4 bases). You then have about 1 minute before the ball has doubled in size. You also most likely aren't maxed out with a ton of army, because zergs do this after engaging you and trading. Meanwhile, they throw down a ton of static D when they switch and prepare to base trade you, and it's very tough to win a basetrade vs. a big ball of mutalisks. They'll even hide the mutas in a corner until they've got enough to be a real threat. Yes, but if a Zerg sits on a big bank to buy mutalisks after losing units, your chances in the actual combat are quite higher, since the Zerg does not engage with as vast of an army as he could or as early as he could have. Unless you are behind or being countered, the first trade should go way in your favor in such a scenario. There is really two sides to mutalisk switches. The ones where the Zerg just trades well beforehand and Protoss is hard pressed to even stabilize against what the Zerg was doing before and then just dies to the mutalisks, and the ones where the Protoss just stomps the first trade or prevents it alltogether, and then the Zerg has a bunch of mutas against a big deathball or just sits on a pile of roaches and money and gets rolled two minutes later. And then there is the plain and simple solution of doing something more heavily stargate based as your macro style. With a bunch of voidrays and Colossi to win the engagements and 3 ready-to-go stargates if the Zerg should dare to try mutas. | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On May 10 2014 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote: Its wonderful. On May 10 2014 08:52 HeavenResign wrote: one of the coolest ideas on the swarm host i've ever read honestly On May 10 2014 09:54 Penev wrote: That's.. a bingo! Implement immediately. :D ty | ||
|
MajorBiscuit
83 Posts
On May 10 2014 07:47 y0su wrote: I wonder what it would look like if locusts followed the same rally rules as every other unit (move command)... Just requiring the player to a-move the locusts could have a big impact. This! You should email Blizzard, I want a test map.  | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3548 Posts
| ||
|
shogeki
Canada75 Posts
On May 07 2014 03:03 Yakikorosu wrote: In the short term, just place a cap on swarm hosts. A player isn't allowed to have more than 10 swarm hosts out at a time (the number can be adjusted up or down a little bit). Done. As someone who has played a lot of Dawn of War and is familiar with the balance team, DON'T EVEN JOKE about this. This is an incredibly lazy solution to the problem and completely possibly given the infamy of SC2's head balance designer. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
| ||
|
Trustworthy-Tony
Tanzania187 Posts
On May 10 2014 21:41 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't get all that enthousiasm about the rally point thing. Could someone care to explain how it would solve stalemates ZvZ, which is what David Kim is trying (awkwardly, I fear) to address ? It used to be that units coming out of buildings would be on attack move to the rally point, but it was changed to move command. They're suggesting the same for locust which is a silly suggestion because it accomplishes nothing except for making swarm host less feasible to use for bad players. | ||
|
Estancia
Korea (South)335 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
|
MajorBiscuit
83 Posts
| ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
What SH's need is a major redesign... | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27352 Posts
| ||
| ||
