EPTEfficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports.
omg the change I liked the most
please Blizzard consider looking into saturation efficiency as an option T_T
Legacy of the Void Announced - Page 110
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
omg the change I liked the most please Blizzard consider looking into saturation efficiency as an option T_T | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9424 Posts
Just with the lurker it was just impossible to make a burrowed unit that can only attack when burrow, so they really gave in and made the lurker. I don't understand how they came to that conclusion. You can create a similar effect with the SH if they made the following changes: - Duration of Locusts reduced to 3-4 seconds (this will give effective range of 9-11 down from like 35) - SH spawn Locusts instantly every 4-5th second. - Burrow/unburrow duration reduced - SH movement speed increased to 3.25, no creep spread benefits. - Locusts target priority reduced and their HP has been increased. - Locusts DPS roughly doubled This will give very much the same role as the current Lurker has with the exception that instead of dealing damage in a line, it can deal damage to multiple targets if they are closer to the SH. Thus, instead of functioning as a free unit, the Locusts will function as a projectile that can attack 2-3 times to closer range targets and only range to targets that are 10-11 range away. I actually believe this solution would fit Sc2 sightly better as it would make it possible for the SH to do a bit of damage without commiting in the proces. Too an extent it would be able to "kite" against units with 7 range or below, while the Lurker has to commit once it burrows. This would make the Swarm Host slightly better without support and thus it would be a bit less "deathball"'ish. As long as kiting isn't the dominant form of micro, I think having a bit of it adds more flavor to the unit. I feel like their idea with the Cyclone was just to create a goliath without admitting they are making a goliath. This doens't fit with any roles, I mean Viking is the "Goliath" here, and Thor even has an AA vs armored transformation mode. | ||
|
cpower
228 Posts
| ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
| ||
|
Code
Canada634 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:28 cpower wrote: I think the siege tank drop harass is going to be too OP. You drop it at mineral line and a few volleys will destroy the worker line. That does not add a lot of micro to the terran but the toss/zerg will have to do a lot more to deal with it. no way this one goes through. I think this can be balanced pretty easily. Make it so when the tank is dropped in seige mode it has to deploy its leg supports again before firing. It doesn't have to be the same full time to seige up in the first place obviously, even just a second or two delay to give you time to react and pull workers, blink or target fire it etc | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:34 Code wrote: I think this can be balanced pretty easily. Make it so when the tank is dropped in seige mode it has to deploy its leg supports again before firing. It doesn't have to be the same full time to seige up in the first place obviously, even just a second or two delay to give you time to react and pull workers, blink or target fire it etc I think pulling your workers would be the worst thing to do as they tend to clump when you do that ;D Maybe attack the tank and hope for the best would work better. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9424 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:34 Code wrote: I think this can be balanced pretty easily. Make it so when the tank is dropped in seige mode it has to deploy its leg supports again before firing. It doesn't have to be the same full time to seige up in the first place obviously, even just a second or two delay to give you time to react and pull workers, blink or target fire it etc Yeh Reaver, had like 0.5 second delay before it would attack after being dropped. Siege Tanks obviously cannot attack instantly after being dropped out. | ||
|
cpower
228 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:34 Code wrote: I think this can be balanced pretty easily. Make it so when the tank is dropped in seige mode it has to deploy its leg supports again before firing. It doesn't have to be the same full time to seige up in the first place obviously, even just a second or two delay to give you time to react and pull workers, blink or target fire it etc  that would work but it will not be exactly as they said "tank can be dropped in siege mode". | ||
|
HaloLegend98
United States54 Posts
I don't think that anyone else noticed this, but during the Bo5 LotV show match between MC/HyuN and Polt/SoO when units move behind a structure they are now outlined and the structure temporarily is translucent. Check it out: WCS Global Finals 2014 Starcraft 2 - Showmatch - …: Notice the SCVs behind the Starport and the CC around 27:30. Not sure if this is a current thing, but it caught my eye and I want to share it. | ||
|
HaloLegend98
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Daeracon
Sweden199 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:22 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: omg the change I liked the most please Blizzard consider looking into saturation efficiency as an option T_T Agree, however mapmakers could solve this problem by just having fewer nodes per base. That way the community can force blizzard to also move in that way. It would be cool if proleague would try that, or some other tournament or perhaps a show match on such a map. I know these have been made before, but I do not think they had the correct PR to get it out properly. Units are not balanced around this of course, and if blizzard changed the economy this direction instead it would hit everyone and the units could be balanced accordingly internally. | ||
|
SinO[Ob]
France897 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:46 HaloLegend98 wrote: Hey guys I don't think that anyone else noticed this, but during the Bo5 LotV show match between MC/HyuN and Polt/SoO when units move behind a structure they are now outlined and the structure temporarily is translucent. Check it out: WCS Global Finals 2014 Starcraft 2 - Showmatch - …: http://youtu.be/WmXe-PQzUro Notice the SCVs behind the Starport and the CC around 27:30. Not sure if this is a current thing, but it caught my eye and I want to share it. Dude, that hawkeye you have ^^. Thanks for nitcing it this could be cool add yea :D! | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote: Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? The effect I see it having is that games won't stop around 3 base vs 3 base anymore. Whichever player has the defenders advantage can jump up to 4 bases or even more. It will allow for much more diversity, aggression, harass, etc. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:36 BaronVonOwn wrote: No, I think this is actually a pretty major rework of protoss (as was needed). Immortals will have all-around combat strength and protoss now has burst AOE damage in the disruptor (it is currently the only race which completely lacks this). These were the two big weaknesses of protoss and they're gone now. It's hard for me to think of a weakness in the protoss unit set now, the disruptor may look hard to land right now but I bet with force fields and time warps it's going to be fine (this is probably why time warp was nerfed). I agree that it would be nice if protoss had a fun new unit to play with, maybe if they gave the full mothership some kind of healing ability? It seems that's the only thing protoss doesn't have compared to the other races. As it stands now there is no reason to build the full mothership unless you have lots of cash to burn. But it's one thing to rework a race for balance etc. and its another to give Protoss some new interesting fucking units. I feel like a kid in a candy shop - only Terrans and Zergs are the ones getting the candy and I get a fucking stick of celery. It's like zero thought was put into "how can we engage the Protoss players." | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? Well, Reducing saturation means you need to take more bases to get the same income. Looking at a matchup like PvT, for example - Protoss already struggles HARD to hold 3 bases vs. multipronged aggression. What are we to do if now to get the same army I need to be spread out across 4-5 bases? Unless a MAJOR rework of the basic non-AoE units is done, it's just not viable unless the maps are designed in such a way that 4-5 bases are really easy to hold. In which case you're basically back at where we are now. Just with more Command Centers/Nexus' but no more strategic options. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:24 Hider wrote: This doens't fit with any roles, I mean Viking is the "Goliath" here, and Thor even has an AA vs armored transformation mode. Exactly. I feel like they are just introducing units for the sake of it without a real plan. Like all the HotS units had a goal behind them initially. Protoss was lacking harass so the Oracle was made. Protoss was lacking BL/Colossus counters so the Tempest was made. Terran Mech had trouble with keeping opponents away so the hellbat was made. And so on... | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9424 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? The effect I see it having is that games won't stop around 3 base vs 3 base anymore. Whichever player has the defenders advantage can jump up to 4 bases or even more. It will allow for much more diversity, aggression, harass, etc. I wrote about this in multiple posts actually, but there are multiple reasons that 12-max saturation (and 900 mineral patches) could severely backfire. (1) Immobile race goes Avilo-level of turtle every game as it needs to focus on taking and defending additional level of bases. If it defends well enough, then there will be no action. Perhaps if every single harass unit is super super strong, then we will still see action, but in that scenario, there would also be lots of action with the Sc2-econ. (2) Snowball-effect is without a doubt much higher in this econ than what it was in BW and SC2 since the punishment for losing a base is really really high. Thus, there will be fewer back-and-fourth games. (3) Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable unless the cost-efficiceny of those units is heavily compensated due to new economy heavily rewarding mobility. Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that. For some reason when people bring up the effects up BW economy, they only look at the "more bases"-aspect. But it's extremely important to remember that BW economy never forced players to take additional bases. It only rewarded the players who could. Since the mobile race typically could defend several locations at once, they could take extra while the immobile race would stay on fewer bases than what we see in SC2. If you have 60 workers on 2 bases in BW, you have a higher income than 60 workers on 2 bases in Sc2. 12-max saturation/6-mineral patches has been tested previously by mapmakers and Starbow had a similar economy for a while. For the immobile playstyle to be "viable/balanced", it needs to be compensated with higher cost-efficiency, which typically makes it impossible for the mobile race to engage. You could argue that by forcing the immobile race to be more spread out, the immobile race will be more vulnerable to attacks, but that's actually a flawed way to look at it. The reason for that is that the immobile race cannot afford to ever lose an engagement + base as that has a much harsher penalty related to it. Therefore he will only take bases at the rate of speed which he can defend them. By cutting down on harass/offensive-units, he can take bases faster, but that comes at the compensation at no aggression happening at all. This effectively creates an equlibrium where immobile race understands the risk/reward that is in favor of not being aggressive himself but dedicate all his ressources to defense and taking bases. Meanwhile the mobile race will have an extremely difficult time making anything happen and will try to outexpand the immobile race. Sure you may see 7 bases at 18 minute mark (or something like that), but it will be a very passive gameplay. It's therefore important to note that taking more bases is not a good thing in itself. Instead, the important thing is to reward more strategic diversity and engagements. 12-max saturation (and 900 mineral per base too a lesser extent) is more likely to reduce action than encourage it. BW economy did the opposite thing. BW econ > Sc2 econ >> 900 minerals per patch econ >>>>>> 12 max/6 mineral patches econ | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:58 DinoMight wrote: Well, Reducing saturation means you need to take more bases to get the same income. Looking at a matchup like PvT, for example - Protoss already struggles HARD to hold 3 bases vs. multipronged aggression. What are we to do if now to get the same army I need to be spread out across 4-5 bases? Unless a MAJOR rework of the basic non-AoE units is done, it's just not viable unless the maps are designed in such a way that 4-5 bases are really easy to hold. In which case you're basically back at where we are now. Just with more Command Centers/Nexus' but no more strategic options. Reducing saturation doesn't mean you need to take more bases, it means you can, which is the major, major difference. People like iamcaustic and Hider already made a lot of posts here to explain it in details, but basically with reduced saturation you can afford to be on less bases if you have the most cost efficient units, while your opponent, less cost efficient, will have to take more bases to gain in efficiency, which leads to an interesting and diversified gameplay | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
| ||
