This makes no sense to me, because nerfing and buffing and otherwise changing the units are exactly what changes unit interactions
An interaction is about how you micro the units, but let's say you nerfed the DPS of Marines by 5%. Would that change how you microed them vs Banelings? Probably not, and that's why that's a balance-change and not a design-chance.
If you change the range of the new terran unit, the interaction is different as infinitive kiting is removed.
Yeah I know. And changing the range is nerfing/ buffing. No one is saying that lowering DPS = changing micro ability; you're creating a strawman argument. At this point, I think you're just having a semantics problem and trying to redefine what a nerf is. I'm not okay with playing ball there.
This makes no sense to me, because nerfing and buffing and otherwise changing the units are exactly what changes unit interactions
An interaction is about how you micro the units, but let's say you nerfed the DPS of Marines by 5%. Would that change how you microed them vs Banelings? Probably not, and that's why that's a balance-change and not a design-chance.
If you change the range of the new terran unit, the interaction is different as infinitive kiting is removed.
Yeah I know. And changing the range is nerfing/ buffing. At this point, I think you're just having a semantics argument and trying to redefine what a nerf is. I'm not okay with playing ball there.
My point is that it's very easy to identify when there is a flaw in the interaction, while it's harder to identify when a unit is slightly too weak. If the terran unit could still do infinitive kiting but had like 10 times less damage, then it would be UP, but it's interaction would still be terrible and I would still be in favor of reducing its range (and balancing it around) that.
This isn't semantics, as I wouldn't be negative towards Blizzard if a unit had a fun interaction but wasn't perfectly balanced.
If we look at Siege tank drops, they are not troublesome because they are overpowered. Even if you make it an upgrade, it would still be poorly designed becasue the enemy can't attack the dropship/Siege Tank. That's the same reason forcefields suck vs zerg. The game becomes most fun when both players can react through their unitcontrol to what the enemy is doing.
Saw the exibition matches. I like the direction they are going, but this Cyclone thing and the Siege Tank drop... My God, have they even played the game before Blizzcon? lol
This is why I don't play blizzard games anymore. The fact that the game isn't finished is no excuse for how retarded this is. Also, why did they decide to give terran the one thing that protoss players have wanted which is reaver+shuttle play in the form of siege tank medivac. how awful.
I really like the concept of cyclones much more than warhounds? But obviously needs some tweeking any addition to the factory is a good thing in my book
On November 09 2014 03:17 Snorkle wrote: This is why I don't play blizzard games anymore. The fact that the game isn't finished is no excuse for how retarded this is. Also, why did they decide to give terran the one thing that protoss players have wanted which is reaver+shuttle play in the form of siege tank medivac. how awful.
they dont need an excuse for anything because they havent sold lotv to anyone yet...
once its on the market then theyll need an "excuse" if things are wrong
EPT
alpha-WoL footage xD
