|
^dude, I dont even know or care what you guys are arguing about but you need to go out and socialize.
|
On November 14 2014 23:04 LoneYoShi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 22:31 VArsovskiSC wrote:On November 14 2014 21:29 Lexender wrote:On November 14 2014 19:52 VArsovskiSC wrote:My 2 concerns is that DKim takes only "selective" and "gradual" approach in his creativity of new stuff: #1 - "gradual" approach mistake - when they said Banshee +1 range - we wanted to make them better vs Marines, Terran has the Cyclone to deflect harassment.. Well sure Mr. Kim, but what about the other 2 races ?  , like - 5 range Queens surely won't be able to beat Banshees, and Stalkers already lose to them in a straight up engagement unless in very superior numbers.. ? I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO w.t.f. when listening to that - as if Starcraft was all about TvT, lol.. Ah sure - we'll see for the other two races later on.. well - w.t.f. - you can't make design gradual like that, means that further requriements will affect changes to current design, it's like 3 times the work required, lol #2 - "elitist" approach "mistake" - I don't like how DKim has an ALMOST EXCLUSIVE ELITIST approach.. Like - sure - they brought the Reaver micro back, but this is actually even harder , I mean w.t.f. - a unit that's 100/100 and costs 300 gas.. Really ? I mean the problem is - if you put units in the game that are only usable for pros - you surely won't have a greater playable audience.. ============================================================================= I mean - I'd be pretty satisfied EVEN NOW if there weren't a few w.t.f. factors in the game like: #1 - Banshee Range = biggest w.t.f. of them all #2 - Siege Tank Siege drop micro - again w.t.f. with this ?.. I'd be OK if this was an upgrade researchable, or even better some per-siege-tank "individual upgrade" for 25/25 or sth, but there's NO WAY this stays as is defendable.. Are Zergs really committed to Ravager/Queen being the only option to defend this ?, are they supposed to rush to Mutas every game or what ?? #3 - Nydus change - sure it sounds fun when Zerg has one Nydus network, but what to do as Protoss if Zerg has 3 networks or more ? #4 - Warp-in mechanic change.. How on Earth is Protoss supposed to defend vs Ling runbies and vs Bio Drops ? As for the new units - well #1 - Disruptor should be a relatively "expendable" unit, should cost like 150/75, or say 125/100 but do lesser AoE and a lesser Damage.. You'll ask - Banelings for Protoss ? - y, they could make the unit have 50/50 or even 40/40, but it's still something that would make the race work better (perhaps even without forcefields, or with 75 energy per FF) IMO #2 - Cyclone should have a "role", not kill everything.. Therefore I think it should have something like 9 (+ 9 vs Armored) damage and start with 5 latch and 8 max kiting range, and have it upgradeable for only later stages in the game for those radiuses to be like 7/13 respectively.. w.t.f. with the radiuses even from the early game, lol ============================================================================= And yes - would've liked for them to test if there were less workers per base saturation, not just the 12 on start.. Think the game would be much more fun if now when the armies are much more have-to-be-microable to require less economy management overall.. Surely - more options for harassment, but harassment as is now is actually brutal - like - GG outright and no chance to come back for-EVER.. If they made it like 12 workers per base (or even 16 to retain the 8 patches per base) - unless being committed to a multi-base harass - 12 (or even 16) workers aren't that much detrimental, so a better gameplay with more army-vs-army "skirmishing/domination" battles rather than army fight and one (or a couple) of drops Are you actually talking about stats ROFL, what you saw was just a pre-alpha they just showed how some of the units were, theres still a lot of changes coming before the beta, you are talking like they already released the game lol. Talking about range and cost and making stuff upgrades only comes once everything is already done and only balancing is left and I think that won't happen for several months I wasn't talking about stats, I was critisizing a bad approach.. But yes - stats were the arguments Still - doesn't require an expert to see how that's overall a very bad approach Stats are not final. No point in using them as arguments since they are going to change wildly. Even the design is not final, as it showed with the HotS announcement (ultralisk burrow charge, replicant, baneling burrow movement, warhound, the initial mines and oracles, etc). The only process Blizzard seems to have is the following: - Think about crazy, ridiculously over-the-top things that sound/seem really FUN. Based on what they showed, I'd say this is where they're at in LotV. - Actually try it in game, see if the FUN is still there and if doesn't ruin the FUN for the other player too. Based on this outcome, either keep the "design" of the change, or redesign/scrap it. - Once they have a good view of what they think will really improve the FUN of the game, then, and only finally then, do they start to worry about balancing. See how the the balance, the stats and even the design really only appear at the end of the process ? You're arguing about stuff that isn't even relevant yet. So please, don't go any further.
That's where we differ - in order to have FUN, you first have to have balance, because FUN is something a player may or may not find in a relatively balanced environment on his/her own
|
VArsovskiSC, if you cannot talk to me in a normal way, please piss off. This is completely respectless.
Also, I play Random. Ggnore.
|
On November 15 2014 04:59 VArsovskiSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 04:54 SC2Toastie wrote:VArsovskiSC, you're flat out balance whining over a pre-alpha. Stop it. On November 15 2014 03:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 03:41 Foxxan wrote:On November 15 2014 03:10 DoubleReed wrote:On November 15 2014 02:02 Hider wrote:I don't understand the Cyclone's role in Terran (except to be a Mech Marauder), and I think they should consider giving it to Protoss instead Initally I didn't either, but if this unit along with the Hellion can give terarn mech some harass potential vs armored units/static defense + it's stats can be tweaed somewhat so it interacts better --> This could be really awesome. You're supposed to be able harass armored units and static defense??? So how are you supposed to defend against them harassing you? Blink stalkers can still be good against cyclone. Immortals can to. Zealots can be good. I see lots of things for toss here. No, just no. You shouldn't be able to "harass" static D. Thats the POINT of static D, is to defend harass. Also, Zealots are melee, I'm not sure how you expect them so be useful against something that moves and shoots at the same time. I want to disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with Static D that can be destroyed in harassment. The worst thing I could think of is Static Defense that completely shuts down harassment without any attention required whatsoever (see: Photon Cannon vs Hellion, Mine; TurretS(!) vs Oracle) with a one-time investment of a couple of minerals you secure your mineral line with SD? There's 2 better options: a) Oracle vs one Turret: with good micro and enough attention, the Turret limits damage, but does not nullify the Oracle. Same happens with Banshee vs Turret. These are interesting interactions because SD limits the amount of damage dealt, but doesn't block it. b) 12 Mutalisk vs one Turret: with a quick repair the Mutalisk will have to commit to the harassment. They can kill the Turret, but it'll be expensive. Bad interactions: c) DT vs Defense. If there is SD, DT's will not deal any reasonable damage. d) Photon/Spine vs Hellions: if there is 2 or 3 defenses, you can throw any number of Hellions in there, it'll never be even remotely cost effective. The last 2 situations are bad. SD should either limit damage dealt OR buy time for additional defense. Because of that, it is no problem if the Cyclone can kill a cannon - as long as the Cannon buys Protoss the time to warp in or get defenses in place. First of all - NO - I'm not Second of all - I'm sick and tired of Terran f*cks telling me things "words of wisdom" cause I KNOW what I'm talking about If you wanna "check" what I'm talking about - consider for a second the following option About your a) - Consider Oracle with a range of 7 ? - how you like that Terran f*cker ? Seriously stop doing that sh*t of "wisening everyone else" cause it's downright outright ignorrant and dreadful Imagine the Oracle having a range of 7 and then having Protosses telling you - relax - it's pre-alpha, it's gonna get better, you can't be sure with 4 games in a showmatch series - YES YOU CAN Sick and tired of Terran apathy jerkness accross the board.. And that Mr. Kim himself having the worst thought process EVER and having his ridiculous sh*t justified by "cool to watch" No offense - only a sick mental Terran mindset can defend a cause that a "harassment unit should kill static D as well", every other "sane" person outright KNOWS that there should be a different unit for each of those two causes.. That's just outright ignorrant and jerk thought process to defend upon
Take a chill pill bro.
I agree that the direction the game is going is a bit Terran favored and I even wrote a blog about how I think Protoss is being neglected in LotV, but these kind of responses are a bit extreme and frankly no one will listen to what you have to say.
I think that Banshees outranging static D will be a bit ridiculous. The point of static D is that you simply accept the COST of it up front to prevent eventual harassment LATER. Everyone knows that minerals are worth more if they're spent now vs. later.. So for example, if I make 3 cannons at the 10 minute mark they need to prevent way more than 450 minerals at the 15 minute mark to be worth it. Because those minerals could have been an extra base that would have yielded way more in the next 3-4 minutes.
So you SHOULD be able to just throw down a whole bunch of cannons/turrets if you don't want to get harassed. A turret in each mineral line (200 mins) effectively shuts down an Oracle as it is right now. Sure you may be able to get 1 SCV building something away from the turrets but it doesn't justify the 300/300 investment.
In that sense I think 7 range Banshees are a bit broken. And I don't think it's too early to discuss that. There are no new unit interactions that will change how a 7 range Banshee kills workers.
|
On November 15 2014 02:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I don't understand the Cyclone's role in Terran (except to be a Mech Marauder), and I think they should consider giving it to Protoss instead Initally I didn't either, but if this unit along with the Hellion can give terarn mech some harass potential vs armored units/static defense + it's stats can be tweaed somewhat so it interacts better --> This could be really awesome.
+ a reliable anti armored air from the Fanct. (while not totally replacing the Viking)
The stats itself are to be balanced obviously, but design wise, it is fine IMO; or at least i am yet to see any arguments to the contrary.
|
On November 15 2014 06:08 VArsovskiSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 23:04 LoneYoShi wrote:On November 14 2014 22:31 VArsovskiSC wrote:On November 14 2014 21:29 Lexender wrote:On November 14 2014 19:52 VArsovskiSC wrote:My 2 concerns is that DKim takes only "selective" and "gradual" approach in his creativity of new stuff: #1 - "gradual" approach mistake - when they said Banshee +1 range - we wanted to make them better vs Marines, Terran has the Cyclone to deflect harassment.. Well sure Mr. Kim, but what about the other 2 races ? , like - 5 range Queens surely won't be able to beat Banshees, and Stalkers already lose to them in a straight up engagement unless in very superior numbers.. ? I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO w.t.f. when listening to that - as if Starcraft was all about TvT, lol.. Ah sure - we'll see for the other two races later on.. well - w.t.f. - you can't make design gradual like that, means that further requriements will affect changes to current design, it's like 3 times the work required, lol #2 - "elitist" approach "mistake" - I don't like how DKim has an ALMOST EXCLUSIVE ELITIST approach.. Like - sure - they brought the Reaver micro back, but this is actually even harder , I mean w.t.f. - a unit that's 100/100 and costs 300 gas.. Really ? I mean the problem is - if you put units in the game that are only usable for pros - you surely won't have a greater playable audience.. ============================================================================= I mean - I'd be pretty satisfied EVEN NOW if there weren't a few w.t.f. factors in the game like: #1 - Banshee Range = biggest w.t.f. of them all #2 - Siege Tank Siege drop micro - again w.t.f. with this ?.. I'd be OK if this was an upgrade researchable, or even better some per-siege-tank "individual upgrade" for 25/25 or sth, but there's NO WAY this stays as is defendable.. Are Zergs really committed to Ravager/Queen being the only option to defend this ?, are they supposed to rush to Mutas every game or what ?? #3 - Nydus change - sure it sounds fun when Zerg has one Nydus network, but what to do as Protoss if Zerg has 3 networks or more ? #4 - Warp-in mechanic change.. How on Earth is Protoss supposed to defend vs Ling runbies and vs Bio Drops ? As for the new units - well #1 - Disruptor should be a relatively "expendable" unit, should cost like 150/75, or say 125/100 but do lesser AoE and a lesser Damage.. You'll ask - Banelings for Protoss ? - y, they could make the unit have 50/50 or even 40/40, but it's still something that would make the race work better (perhaps even without forcefields, or with 75 energy per FF) IMO #2 - Cyclone should have a "role", not kill everything.. Therefore I think it should have something like 9 (+ 9 vs Armored) damage and start with 5 latch and 8 max kiting range, and have it upgradeable for only later stages in the game for those radiuses to be like 7/13 respectively.. w.t.f. with the radiuses even from the early game, lol ============================================================================= And yes - would've liked for them to test if there were less workers per base saturation, not just the 12 on start.. Think the game would be much more fun if now when the armies are much more have-to-be-microable to require less economy management overall.. Surely - more options for harassment, but harassment as is now is actually brutal - like - GG outright and no chance to come back for-EVER.. If they made it like 12 workers per base (or even 16 to retain the 8 patches per base) - unless being committed to a multi-base harass - 12 (or even 16) workers aren't that much detrimental, so a better gameplay with more army-vs-army "skirmishing/domination" battles rather than army fight and one (or a couple) of drops Are you actually talking about stats ROFL, what you saw was just a pre-alpha they just showed how some of the units were, theres still a lot of changes coming before the beta, you are talking like they already released the game lol. Talking about range and cost and making stuff upgrades only comes once everything is already done and only balancing is left and I think that won't happen for several months I wasn't talking about stats, I was critisizing a bad approach.. But yes - stats were the arguments Still - doesn't require an expert to see how that's overall a very bad approach Stats are not final. No point in using them as arguments since they are going to change wildly. Even the design is not final, as it showed with the HotS announcement (ultralisk burrow charge, replicant, baneling burrow movement, warhound, the initial mines and oracles, etc). The only process Blizzard seems to have is the following: - Think about crazy, ridiculously over-the-top things that sound/seem really FUN. Based on what they showed, I'd say this is where they're at in LotV. - Actually try it in game, see if the FUN is still there and if doesn't ruin the FUN for the other player too. Based on this outcome, either keep the "design" of the change, or redesign/scrap it. - Once they have a good view of what they think will really improve the FUN of the game, then, and only finally then, do they start to worry about balancing. See how the the balance, the stats and even the design really only appear at the end of the process ? You're arguing about stuff that isn't even relevant yet. So please, don't go any further. That's where we differ - in order to have FUN, you first have to have balance, because FUN is something a player may or may not find in a relatively balanced environment on his/her own
No, you don't.
Design comes first, then you tune the numbers until it's balanced. You can have an incredibly fun game that has several imba strategies which still need to be fixed. You can also have a perfectly 100% balanced game that's not any fun at all.
Thankfully, Blizzard went into LotV with Design Goals in mind that actually contribute towards making the game more fun to watch and play, whereas HotS went in mainly with the goal of just adding more units and trying to keep the balance perfect from the outset.
|
On November 15 2014 07:21 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 04:59 VArsovskiSC wrote:On November 15 2014 04:54 SC2Toastie wrote:VArsovskiSC, you're flat out balance whining over a pre-alpha. Stop it. On November 15 2014 03:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 03:41 Foxxan wrote:On November 15 2014 03:10 DoubleReed wrote:On November 15 2014 02:02 Hider wrote:I don't understand the Cyclone's role in Terran (except to be a Mech Marauder), and I think they should consider giving it to Protoss instead Initally I didn't either, but if this unit along with the Hellion can give terarn mech some harass potential vs armored units/static defense + it's stats can be tweaed somewhat so it interacts better --> This could be really awesome. You're supposed to be able harass armored units and static defense??? So how are you supposed to defend against them harassing you? Blink stalkers can still be good against cyclone. Immortals can to. Zealots can be good. I see lots of things for toss here. No, just no. You shouldn't be able to "harass" static D. Thats the POINT of static D, is to defend harass. Also, Zealots are melee, I'm not sure how you expect them so be useful against something that moves and shoots at the same time. I want to disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with Static D that can be destroyed in harassment. The worst thing I could think of is Static Defense that completely shuts down harassment without any attention required whatsoever (see: Photon Cannon vs Hellion, Mine; TurretS(!) vs Oracle) with a one-time investment of a couple of minerals you secure your mineral line with SD? There's 2 better options: a) Oracle vs one Turret: with good micro and enough attention, the Turret limits damage, but does not nullify the Oracle. Same happens with Banshee vs Turret. These are interesting interactions because SD limits the amount of damage dealt, but doesn't block it. b) 12 Mutalisk vs one Turret: with a quick repair the Mutalisk will have to commit to the harassment. They can kill the Turret, but it'll be expensive. Bad interactions: c) DT vs Defense. If there is SD, DT's will not deal any reasonable damage. d) Photon/Spine vs Hellions: if there is 2 or 3 defenses, you can throw any number of Hellions in there, it'll never be even remotely cost effective. The last 2 situations are bad. SD should either limit damage dealt OR buy time for additional defense. Because of that, it is no problem if the Cyclone can kill a cannon - as long as the Cannon buys Protoss the time to warp in or get defenses in place. First of all - NO - I'm not Second of all - I'm sick and tired of Terran f*cks telling me things "words of wisdom" cause I KNOW what I'm talking about If you wanna "check" what I'm talking about - consider for a second the following option About your a) - Consider Oracle with a range of 7 ? - how you like that Terran f*cker ? Seriously stop doing that sh*t of "wisening everyone else" cause it's downright outright ignorrant and dreadful Imagine the Oracle having a range of 7 and then having Protosses telling you - relax - it's pre-alpha, it's gonna get better, you can't be sure with 4 games in a showmatch series - YES YOU CAN Sick and tired of Terran apathy jerkness accross the board.. And that Mr. Kim himself having the worst thought process EVER and having his ridiculous sh*t justified by "cool to watch" No offense - only a sick mental Terran mindset can defend a cause that a "harassment unit should kill static D as well", every other "sane" person outright KNOWS that there should be a different unit for each of those two causes.. That's just outright ignorrant and jerk thought process to defend upon Take a chill pill bro. I agree that the direction the game is going is a bit Terran favored and I even wrote a blog about how I think Protoss is being neglected in LotV, but these kind of responses are a bit extreme and frankly no one will listen to what you have to say. I think that Banshees outranging static D will be a bit ridiculous. The point of static D is that you simply accept the COST of it up front to prevent eventual harassment LATER. Everyone knows that minerals are worth more if they're spent now vs. later.. So for example, if I make 3 cannons at the 10 minute mark they need to prevent way more than 450 minerals at the 15 minute mark to be worth it. Because those minerals could have been an extra base that would have yielded way more in the next 3-4 minutes. So you SHOULD be able to just throw down a whole bunch of cannons/turrets if you don't want to get harassed. A turret in each mineral line (200 mins) effectively shuts down an Oracle as it is right now. Sure you may be able to get 1 SCV building something away from the turrets but it doesn't justify the 300/300 investment. In that sense I think 7 range Banshees are a bit broken. And I don't think it's too early to discuss that. There are no new unit interactions that will change how a 7 range Banshee kills workers.
I think a lot of these things are made with a second new unit for protoss in mind, they are making everything more aggresive, changes to WG, less defenders advantage, everything points for a gateway unit for protoss, something that they could use early/mid without relying on AoE, because otherwise protoss changes would make 0 sense whatsoever
|
On November 15 2014 08:07 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 07:21 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 04:59 VArsovskiSC wrote:On November 15 2014 04:54 SC2Toastie wrote:VArsovskiSC, you're flat out balance whining over a pre-alpha. Stop it. On November 15 2014 03:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 03:41 Foxxan wrote:On November 15 2014 03:10 DoubleReed wrote:On November 15 2014 02:02 Hider wrote:I don't understand the Cyclone's role in Terran (except to be a Mech Marauder), and I think they should consider giving it to Protoss instead Initally I didn't either, but if this unit along with the Hellion can give terarn mech some harass potential vs armored units/static defense + it's stats can be tweaed somewhat so it interacts better --> This could be really awesome. You're supposed to be able harass armored units and static defense??? So how are you supposed to defend against them harassing you? Blink stalkers can still be good against cyclone. Immortals can to. Zealots can be good. I see lots of things for toss here. No, just no. You shouldn't be able to "harass" static D. Thats the POINT of static D, is to defend harass. Also, Zealots are melee, I'm not sure how you expect them so be useful against something that moves and shoots at the same time. I want to disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with Static D that can be destroyed in harassment. The worst thing I could think of is Static Defense that completely shuts down harassment without any attention required whatsoever (see: Photon Cannon vs Hellion, Mine; TurretS(!) vs Oracle) with a one-time investment of a couple of minerals you secure your mineral line with SD? There's 2 better options: a) Oracle vs one Turret: with good micro and enough attention, the Turret limits damage, but does not nullify the Oracle. Same happens with Banshee vs Turret. These are interesting interactions because SD limits the amount of damage dealt, but doesn't block it. b) 12 Mutalisk vs one Turret: with a quick repair the Mutalisk will have to commit to the harassment. They can kill the Turret, but it'll be expensive. Bad interactions: c) DT vs Defense. If there is SD, DT's will not deal any reasonable damage. d) Photon/Spine vs Hellions: if there is 2 or 3 defenses, you can throw any number of Hellions in there, it'll never be even remotely cost effective. The last 2 situations are bad. SD should either limit damage dealt OR buy time for additional defense. Because of that, it is no problem if the Cyclone can kill a cannon - as long as the Cannon buys Protoss the time to warp in or get defenses in place. First of all - NO - I'm not Second of all - I'm sick and tired of Terran f*cks telling me things "words of wisdom" cause I KNOW what I'm talking about If you wanna "check" what I'm talking about - consider for a second the following option About your a) - Consider Oracle with a range of 7 ? - how you like that Terran f*cker ? Seriously stop doing that sh*t of "wisening everyone else" cause it's downright outright ignorrant and dreadful Imagine the Oracle having a range of 7 and then having Protosses telling you - relax - it's pre-alpha, it's gonna get better, you can't be sure with 4 games in a showmatch series - YES YOU CAN Sick and tired of Terran apathy jerkness accross the board.. And that Mr. Kim himself having the worst thought process EVER and having his ridiculous sh*t justified by "cool to watch" No offense - only a sick mental Terran mindset can defend a cause that a "harassment unit should kill static D as well", every other "sane" person outright KNOWS that there should be a different unit for each of those two causes.. That's just outright ignorrant and jerk thought process to defend upon Take a chill pill bro. I agree that the direction the game is going is a bit Terran favored and I even wrote a blog about how I think Protoss is being neglected in LotV, but these kind of responses are a bit extreme and frankly no one will listen to what you have to say. I think that Banshees outranging static D will be a bit ridiculous. The point of static D is that you simply accept the COST of it up front to prevent eventual harassment LATER. Everyone knows that minerals are worth more if they're spent now vs. later.. So for example, if I make 3 cannons at the 10 minute mark they need to prevent way more than 450 minerals at the 15 minute mark to be worth it. Because those minerals could have been an extra base that would have yielded way more in the next 3-4 minutes. So you SHOULD be able to just throw down a whole bunch of cannons/turrets if you don't want to get harassed. A turret in each mineral line (200 mins) effectively shuts down an Oracle as it is right now. Sure you may be able to get 1 SCV building something away from the turrets but it doesn't justify the 300/300 investment. In that sense I think 7 range Banshees are a bit broken. And I don't think it's too early to discuss that. There are no new unit interactions that will change how a 7 range Banshee kills workers. I think a lot of these things are made with a second new unit for protoss in mind, they are making everything more aggresive, changes to WG, less defenders advantage, everything points for a gateway unit for protoss, something that they could use early/mid without relying on AoE, because otherwise protoss changes would make 0 sense whatsoever
They said they have several potential new units for each race, in addition to the ones shown at blizzcon. And they have a few months before the beta to work things out between the current changes, other units and whatever will come in between.
Talking about how a 7 range banshee may be broken is fine and all, but:
- that's just a number. Numbers change. It's a minor issue that will get fixed in the beta if it's even still there (which I doubt)
- blizzard may very well have had some new unit/building interactions in mind when they decided to try this. Or not. We don't know.
Commenting on some doubts over what was shown, fine. Theorycrafting is a waste of time since nobody can test the actual game and things *will* have changed when we're able to play it. But theorycrafting is nearly always a waste of time and it never stopped anyone, so why not.
Whining, shouting and throwing tantrums over the current state of LotV, whatever it is, is however simply idiotic. And it's been mostly idiotic for more than 130 pages here already, so I don't even know why I'm wasting time writing this 
|
On November 15 2014 08:28 Maniak_ wrote:Whining, shouting and throwing tantrums over the current state of LotV, whatever it is, is however simply idiotic. And it's been mostly idiotic for more than 130 pages here already, so I don't even know why I'm wasting time writing this
You have hope for the human race, you optimist, you.
|
To all the whiners: Get better, become a pro, then maybe Blizzard will listen to you. As for now, shouting at each other on a forum is pointless and childish. Just saying.
For me, I love SC2 and really hope Blizzard won't fuck up the game we all know and love, but if they do, too bad for them.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 13 2014 08:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Why do thors have an absurd 0.831 damage point for their ground attack, but not their air attack? Why favor bio so much?
0.831 damage point lol. I didn't know it was that bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was an area where Blizzard is trying to make the casuals happy as a big mechanical unit like the Thor (lore-wise) is "supposed" to be slow and unresposnsive. That's my biggest wish for LOTV: Rework the stats of all of the units with the intention on improving micro-interactions while giving zero shi.t about "lore". Show nested quote +Yes, the unit forces the terran to play differently. That's exactly what we want units to do. Impact the way we micro and play. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the unit in the first place. Yeh, but it shouldn't impact the interaction for the worse. Instead, it should make the overall game-dynamic different (allow zerg to attack into different locations than prevoiusly, and rewarding a mech transition is fine). But it should never make engagements less likely to occur, that's just a bad thing in itself.
What's a 'damage point'? 0.831 oO
|
On November 15 2014 11:17 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 08:08 Hider wrote:Why do thors have an absurd 0.831 damage point for their ground attack, but not their air attack? Why favor bio so much?
0.831 damage point lol. I didn't know it was that bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was an area where Blizzard is trying to make the casuals happy as a big mechanical unit like the Thor (lore-wise) is "supposed" to be slow and unresposnsive. That's my biggest wish for LOTV: Rework the stats of all of the units with the intention on improving micro-interactions while giving zero shi.t about "lore". Yes, the unit forces the terran to play differently. That's exactly what we want units to do. Impact the way we micro and play. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the unit in the first place. Yeh, but it shouldn't impact the interaction for the worse. Instead, it should make the overall game-dynamic different (allow zerg to attack into different locations than prevoiusly, and rewarding a mech transition is fine). But it should never make engagements less likely to occur, that's just a bad thing in itself. What's a 'damage point'? 0.831 oO
How long it takes a unit to fire off their damage or launch missile effect.
The zealot has a damage point of 0 so it hits as soon as he gets in range of a target.
A thor has a .831 damage point, so he has to wait that long staring at a unit once in range before his attack launches.
Think about how hellions have to stand in place for a breif moment before their shot finally fires. That delay is damage point.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 15 2014 09:47 FroZeN.Broken wrote:
To all the whiners: Get better, become a pro, then maybe Blizzard will listen to you. As for now, shouting at each other on a forum is pointless and childish. Just saying.
For me, I love SC2 and really hope Blizzard won't fuck up the game we all know and love, but if they do, too bad for them.
Pretty sure most pros would tell you that blizzard doesnt really listen to pros opinions much at all (and a lot of the time, probably that's for the best).
On November 15 2014 12:07 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 11:17 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 13 2014 08:08 Hider wrote:Why do thors have an absurd 0.831 damage point for their ground attack, but not their air attack? Why favor bio so much?
0.831 damage point lol. I didn't know it was that bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was an area where Blizzard is trying to make the casuals happy as a big mechanical unit like the Thor (lore-wise) is "supposed" to be slow and unresposnsive. That's my biggest wish for LOTV: Rework the stats of all of the units with the intention on improving micro-interactions while giving zero shi.t about "lore". Yes, the unit forces the terran to play differently. That's exactly what we want units to do. Impact the way we micro and play. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the unit in the first place. Yeh, but it shouldn't impact the interaction for the worse. Instead, it should make the overall game-dynamic different (allow zerg to attack into different locations than prevoiusly, and rewarding a mech transition is fine). But it should never make engagements less likely to occur, that's just a bad thing in itself. What's a 'damage point'? 0.831 oO How long it takes a unit to fire off their damage or launch missile effect. The zealot has a damage point of 0 so it hits as soon as he gets in range of a target. A thor has a .831 damage point, so he has to wait that long staring at a unit once in range before his attack launches. Think about how hellions have to stand in place for a breif moment before their shot finally fires. That delay is damage point.
Thx!
|
On November 15 2014 09:47 FroZeN.Broken wrote:
To all the whiners: Get better, become a pro, then maybe Blizzard will listen to you. As for now, shouting at each other on a forum is pointless and childish. Just saying.
For me, I love SC2 and really hope Blizzard won't fuck up the game we all know and love, but if they do, too bad for them.
A lot of the stuff they are implementing are thing that were proposed by the community most depeloved after a lot discussion, as long as discussion doesn't becomes senseless whining a lot of feedback can be taken from it, and IS currently being taken from it
|
On November 15 2014 08:07 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 07:21 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 04:59 VArsovskiSC wrote:On November 15 2014 04:54 SC2Toastie wrote:VArsovskiSC, you're flat out balance whining over a pre-alpha. Stop it. On November 15 2014 03:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 15 2014 03:41 Foxxan wrote:On November 15 2014 03:10 DoubleReed wrote:On November 15 2014 02:02 Hider wrote:I don't understand the Cyclone's role in Terran (except to be a Mech Marauder), and I think they should consider giving it to Protoss instead Initally I didn't either, but if this unit along with the Hellion can give terarn mech some harass potential vs armored units/static defense + it's stats can be tweaed somewhat so it interacts better --> This could be really awesome. You're supposed to be able harass armored units and static defense??? So how are you supposed to defend against them harassing you? Blink stalkers can still be good against cyclone. Immortals can to. Zealots can be good. I see lots of things for toss here. No, just no. You shouldn't be able to "harass" static D. Thats the POINT of static D, is to defend harass. Also, Zealots are melee, I'm not sure how you expect them so be useful against something that moves and shoots at the same time. I want to disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with Static D that can be destroyed in harassment. The worst thing I could think of is Static Defense that completely shuts down harassment without any attention required whatsoever (see: Photon Cannon vs Hellion, Mine; TurretS(!) vs Oracle) with a one-time investment of a couple of minerals you secure your mineral line with SD? There's 2 better options: a) Oracle vs one Turret: with good micro and enough attention, the Turret limits damage, but does not nullify the Oracle. Same happens with Banshee vs Turret. These are interesting interactions because SD limits the amount of damage dealt, but doesn't block it. b) 12 Mutalisk vs one Turret: with a quick repair the Mutalisk will have to commit to the harassment. They can kill the Turret, but it'll be expensive. Bad interactions: c) DT vs Defense. If there is SD, DT's will not deal any reasonable damage. d) Photon/Spine vs Hellions: if there is 2 or 3 defenses, you can throw any number of Hellions in there, it'll never be even remotely cost effective. The last 2 situations are bad. SD should either limit damage dealt OR buy time for additional defense. Because of that, it is no problem if the Cyclone can kill a cannon - as long as the Cannon buys Protoss the time to warp in or get defenses in place. First of all - NO - I'm not Second of all - I'm sick and tired of Terran f*cks telling me things "words of wisdom" cause I KNOW what I'm talking about If you wanna "check" what I'm talking about - consider for a second the following option About your a) - Consider Oracle with a range of 7 ? - how you like that Terran f*cker ? Seriously stop doing that sh*t of "wisening everyone else" cause it's downright outright ignorrant and dreadful Imagine the Oracle having a range of 7 and then having Protosses telling you - relax - it's pre-alpha, it's gonna get better, you can't be sure with 4 games in a showmatch series - YES YOU CAN Sick and tired of Terran apathy jerkness accross the board.. And that Mr. Kim himself having the worst thought process EVER and having his ridiculous sh*t justified by "cool to watch" No offense - only a sick mental Terran mindset can defend a cause that a "harassment unit should kill static D as well", every other "sane" person outright KNOWS that there should be a different unit for each of those two causes.. That's just outright ignorrant and jerk thought process to defend upon Take a chill pill bro. I agree that the direction the game is going is a bit Terran favored and I even wrote a blog about how I think Protoss is being neglected in LotV, but these kind of responses are a bit extreme and frankly no one will listen to what you have to say. I think that Banshees outranging static D will be a bit ridiculous. The point of static D is that you simply accept the COST of it up front to prevent eventual harassment LATER. Everyone knows that minerals are worth more if they're spent now vs. later.. So for example, if I make 3 cannons at the 10 minute mark they need to prevent way more than 450 minerals at the 15 minute mark to be worth it. Because those minerals could have been an extra base that would have yielded way more in the next 3-4 minutes. So you SHOULD be able to just throw down a whole bunch of cannons/turrets if you don't want to get harassed. A turret in each mineral line (200 mins) effectively shuts down an Oracle as it is right now. Sure you may be able to get 1 SCV building something away from the turrets but it doesn't justify the 300/300 investment. In that sense I think 7 range Banshees are a bit broken. And I don't think it's too early to discuss that. There are no new unit interactions that will change how a 7 range Banshee kills workers. I think a lot of these things are made with a second new unit for protoss in mind, they are making everything more aggresive, changes to WG, less defenders advantage, everything points for a gateway unit for protoss, something that they could use early/mid without relying on AoE, because otherwise protoss changes would make 0 sense whatsoever
They don't even need a new gateway unit, they should just find ways to buff existing ones minorly so gateway armies are less dependent on the shit colossi.
Why not have charge give a greater passive speed buff to Zealots than it already does? Why not have forcefield get a +2 range buff at the twilight council (considering FF rarely gets used after early game and when storm is out)? Or make units that exit guardian shield still retain their +2 armor for another 5 seconds. Stalkers get +2 armor instead of +1 armor per forge upgrade? Blink has additional +1 range when used. Archons slightly greater splash dmg? Give Guardian Shield also give detection to prevent reliance on obs.
And on a robo note, make immortals have faster speed to keep up with the rest of the army. Give the protoss some damn mobility instead of keeping the deathball but "have recall as a backup." Protoss was mobile as shit in BW.
These are just random suggestions off the top of my head, and not implying they should all be made, just pick a few and do some tweaks. These would all make Protoss less colossi dependent (or maybe just remove them and replace??).
|
Everybody agrees that what the game needs is more back and forth action/aggression. The way Browder and co. are going about it is giving players more options in ways to be aggressive with new units and abilities. However, this is not enough! Players must be forced into a more aggressive playstyle. Having both players sit back and macro into max supply should not be a viable strategy above the lowest levels of play.
WC3 forced players into aggression most explicitly with the upkeep system. BW did this the way Lalush and others explained countless time. (Btw, both WC3 and BW were designed by Rob Pardo who probably would've done a better job with SC2.)
|
What we need for Legacy of the Void is a Reaver Steenkamp
|
On November 15 2014 12:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
These are just random suggestions off the top of my head, and not implying they should all be made, just pick a few and do some tweaks. These would all make Protoss less colossi dependent (or maybe just remove them and replace??).
If I'm not mistaken, that's what the Disruptor is supposed to be. It's basically a Reaver that is its own Scarab.
|
On November 15 2014 11:17 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 08:08 Hider wrote:Why do thors have an absurd 0.831 damage point for their ground attack, but not their air attack? Why favor bio so much?
0.831 damage point lol. I didn't know it was that bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was an area where Blizzard is trying to make the casuals happy as a big mechanical unit like the Thor (lore-wise) is "supposed" to be slow and unresposnsive. That's my biggest wish for LOTV: Rework the stats of all of the units with the intention on improving micro-interactions while giving zero shi.t about "lore". Yes, the unit forces the terran to play differently. That's exactly what we want units to do. Impact the way we micro and play. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the unit in the first place. Yeh, but it shouldn't impact the interaction for the worse. Instead, it should make the overall game-dynamic different (allow zerg to attack into different locations than prevoiusly, and rewarding a mech transition is fine). But it should never make engagements less likely to occur, that's just a bad thing in itself. What's a 'damage point'? 0.831 oO
I thoroughly recommend you watch depth of micro!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 13 2014 01:56 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 01:47 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing) But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro. Almost no unit microes against the marine. Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"?
In BW, speed zealots outran hydras, but if hydras kept moving they wouldn't get hit, but if you moved your zealots ahead of them, zealots get free hits on move command hydras. If zealots move command past hydra, hold position allows hydra to get free hits.
So the winner of zealots vs hydras was about micro.
Bisu Probe vs Zerglings
Jaedong Muta vs Marines
etc....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
