EPTThe building no workers in favour of an early attack is if anything more of an option for every race.
The only difference is that opening with a standard 'safe' build is less likely to instantly lose to an early early attack.
Legacy of the Void Announced - Page 118
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Startyr
Scotland188 Posts
The building no workers in favour of an early attack is if anything more of an option for every race. The only difference is that opening with a standard 'safe' build is less likely to instantly lose to an early early attack. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:17 KeksX wrote: This is why we have to design units in a way that this will never be truly the case. I think thats what made BW for me. You could say "Yeah I totally know how to beat X", but then someone comes who's doing X, but better and you're all like "shit what do?!". In SC2, if someone goes roaches and you build marauders, you should be fine. There's nothing much you can do wrong except not building enough of them. Seeing stuff like the Ravagar, I think that doesn't apply to that unit. What do you build against them? If we stick with the example above and you go purely marauder, unless you micro them better than the zerg micros the Ravagar shots, you can still lose against that. It becomes a situation of "who utilizes it better?" and not just "well did you build enough of them?". (Keep in mind that this is just a hypothesis, I have no idea if Ravagers would actually work against Marauders. I just want to describe my idea on how to fix the problem you mentioned) And what would happen in BW if you went Firebats against Hydras? Or Zerglings against Zealots? I'm all for dynamic unit relationships, but I feel like there's a bit of rose-tinting going on here with the way we talk about BW and hard counters. Sure, there were fun relationships that were complex like Marines vs Lurkers or Vultures vs Goons, but SC2 has stuff like that too, Marines vs Banes, Hellions vs Lings, Marauders vs Colossus/HT... | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:17 KeksX wrote: This is why we have to design units in a way that this will never be truly the case. I think thats what made BW for me. You could say "Yeah I totally know how to beat X", but then someone comes who's doing X, but better and you're all like "shit what do?!". In SC2, if someone goes roaches and you build marauders, you should be fine. There's nothing much you can do wrong except not building enough of them. Seeing stuff like the Ravagar, I think that doesn't apply to that unit. What do you build against them? If we stick with the example above and you go purely marauder, unless you micro them better than the zerg micros the Ravagar shots, you can still lose against that. It becomes a situation of "who utilizes it better?" and not just "well did you build enough of them?". Microp opportunities on both sides just prevents this kind of boring play. Look at TvZ, it's the reason people love it. (Keep in mind that this is just a hypothesis, I have no idea if Ravagers would actually work against Marauders. I just want to describe my idea on how to fix the problem you mentioned) Yeah I agree with your idea that micro prevents boring play, but micro in a deathball basically doesn't exist. And unless they do a major redesign of most existing units that they haven't announced yet, the economic changes, by bringing the deathball earlier in the game, will make for less exciting micro opportunities | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:52 Doodsmack wrote: Not many people are talking about the penalties for clumped up deathballs that blizzard had alluded to it seems. If you read blizzards stated development goals for multiplayer their intentions are actually awesome. They deserve a lot of credit for this shift in multiplayer design I think. A lot of players are pessimistic and are interpreting things negatively. I think we should have a positive outlook and wait to see what blizzard is able to achieve with respect to their goals. I for one am excited. I don't know why people think there has been a shift in goals. More multitasking and micro have always been the intention of blizzard. It's just difficult getting there. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:52 Doodsmack wrote: Not many people are talking about the penalties for clumped up deathballs that blizzard had alluded to it seems. If you read blizzards stated development goals for multiplayer their intentions are actually awesome. They deserve a lot of credit for this shift in multiplayer design I think. A lot of players are pessimistic and are interpreting things negatively. I think we should have a positive outlook and wait to see what blizzard is able to achieve with respect to their goals. I for one am excited. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014 Well, it's nice to say that you want to do something, but it's better to actually do it. I'm pretty sure Blizzard wants to achieve these goals since 2011, if not earlier | ||
|
Eiltonn
Germany307 Posts
If go down a drastic road like this we even could think about decreasing building times a bit, so if you decide to get more buildings early on the effect will be a little bigger (stronger aggression because of more direct interaction between building something and getting units from it) compared to a greedy player. | ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 11 2014 23:44 BaronVonOwn wrote: So did anyone else notice that corruption was removed? Zerg antiair is already weak and it just got nerfed. You will have the infestor dmg buff, i think it will be fine (even though i would prefer more interesting anti air) | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 11 2014 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote: You will have the infestor dmg buff, i think it will be fine (even though i would prefer more interesting anti air) Corruption was like almost imba when used against Tempests/Colossus/other big air units though. I'm a bit sad it is removed | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 12 2014 00:00 OtherWorld wrote: Corruption was like almost imba when used against Tempests/Colossus/other big air units though. I'm a bit sad it is removed The infestor dmg buff is even more powerful, no? | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 12 2014 00:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: The infestor dmg buff is even more powerful, no? But it only applies to ground-to-ground units, unless I'm wrong? | ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On November 11 2014 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote: You will have the infestor dmg buff, i think it will be fine (even though i would prefer more interesting anti air) Depending on the stats given, this could make Zerg air viable. However I find it a bit annoying that Zerg air units cannot be viable on their own, much like protoss gateway units. As it is Zerg doesn't have any counter to void rays / range-upgraded phoenixes and this is only making things worse. On the other hand at least the infestor will be useful again after all the nerfs. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:54 Hider wrote: I don't know why people think there has been a shift in goals. More multitasking and micro have always been the intention of blizzard. It's just difficult getting there. Blizzard has never said they want to break up deathballs or case overall play to be more spread out across the map. I guess the difference now is the scale of the changes they are trying to make, and the fact that a new expansion gives them the opportunity to do so. Those things alone are encouraging IMO. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 11 2014 21:26 SatedSC2 wrote: NaNiwa knew that JD wanted to go 3 Hatch Before Pool so he played on that. He did the same thing to HyuN at another tournament for the same reason. sOs knew that herO wasn't scouting properly so he played on that. It's an important part of punishing player's who are known to be greedy. If you don't find mindgames interesting then fair enough, but waiting an extra minute for those of us who do can't be that bad. The game you posted has nothing to do with mindgames or coinflips so I don't really know why you're posting it. The problems that the SH has have nothing to do with proxy Gateways or 11/11 Rax or 6 Pools or whatever else you can do before 10 supply (and there are a lot of builds you can do before 10 supply yet alone 12). You declared a type of gameplay to an important part of starcraft. I declared another one to an important part of starcraft. I did it to show you how completely arbitrary that is. Also given that you think those were clever mindgame moves relying on an opponent not to scout I have to ask in what way this kind of gameplay is nerfed? Proxy double gates will still beat a 3hatch before pool, so given that you believe Naniwa "knows" that is incoming the situation is completely the same. If some fairy pops up in your head and predicts the future you can still abuse that knowledge, but regularily gambling on this shit gameplay interaction will make you look stupid. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
I haven't played Starcraft for a year because of school, there is many interesting changes though. Hopefully I can convince some friends to play it again. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
| ||
