EPTLegacy of the Void Announced - Page 25
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CeliosB
Canada100 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:18 Hider wrote: No the reason is quite obvious. Let's assume you play protoss, and right now you may be able to invest into a warp prism or an oracle to harass, while staying on 2 bases for a while. Now imagine if you had to take a 3rd base like 3-4 minutes earlier than you normally do. Your focus here is gonna be on making units that allows you to take that base fast. If you invest into lots of infastructure/harass units, you are gonna die to a straight up timing attack if you take a quick 3rd. I don't think this new economy will stay in the game for very long and I almost expect that this was just a last-minute change they added in to satisfy the competitive community. But very early on, people will realize the consequences this has on gameplay, and it will be reverted. Zerg and terran will have to invest in the extra bases and defenses too. It will make bad players die to timing pushes if they just try to take three bases and then get everything, like what we have right now. Which is great. it will force players out on the map and force them to be vulnerable. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:20 Circumstance wrote: Well, people asked for radical choices and major revamps. You got it, folks. Who is "people" ? Some of us would have been pretty fine with changing what was not working and not adding too much. They're changing everything and I'm not sure they'll be able to balance their ambitions any time soon. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
Now we just need reavers and I'll be 100% in! | ||
|
xevis
United States218 Posts
| ||
|
VGhost
United States3621 Posts
Thoughts - 12 workers to start? Maybe useful, but early game dynamics just changed a TON. Rushing just got a lot harder, too... Terran: love the cyclone. The tank thing is dumb - it simplifies micro instead of encouraging it. The Battlecruiser warp mechanic is interesting but ought to be either range-limited or have an associated cool-down. Protoss: like most of the changes. Not sure about warp prism's range. Like the carrier change but I assume there's a timer on "abandoned" interceptors, right? Zerg: LURKERS! Like that they're a functional seige unit, too. Don't like the Nydus worm "invulnerability" thing. In general, the MASSIVE DAMAGE and INVULNERABLE DURING [X TIME] emphases in the changes I really don't like. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
| ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:22 VGhost wrote: In general, the MASSIVE DAMAGE and INVULNERABLE DURING [X TIME] emphases in the changes I really don't like. Same. Notice the cyclone actually seems to deal quite big amounts of damage to ground, and I wish it was more ground harass / air defense specialized. | ||
|
Kuchikikun
Italy560 Posts
| ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
| ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
Thanks Blizzard! | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:24 Circumstance wrote: Tempests being anti-ground only is an interesting choice. They'll have a lot less use in PvZ now. As demonstrated in the video, their main attack only hits ground, but their ability hits air units and is good vs Brood Lords. The ability does 500 damage over 50 seconds. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
| ||
|
ssxsilver
United States4409 Posts
All in all, the very fact that they're looking to make these radical changes is a great thing. | ||
|
Empirimancer
Canada1024 Posts
| ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: What worries me the most is how painful it can be for P to hold on 4+ bases. If those bases are needed to compete economically... Let's just 2-3 base all-in every game and get more hatred than we already do (though I'm not sure it's possible). Yeh, it will obviously also require huge changes to toss. What makes it obvious to me that the econ-change was a last-minute thing was the 8-second warp time as well. To me that change implies that blizzard wants harass vs toss to be even stronger, which already was buffed with the econ change. If both of these two changes stay - they won't, but w/e - then toss gateway units needs a big compensation/redesign. If they really were going for these big redesign, then they would likely also have put it into the video. Also for a while in Starbow, we did try to balance the game around this low-saturation econ, but it's just an absolute mess when the defenders advantage is this small. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:26 Empirimancer wrote: So... no one else dislikes the concept of a Terran melee unit? I like this unit actually, seems a cool concept. Hate the Cyclone though. | ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4383 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:18 sashkata wrote: I am very happy the Immortal is losing it's harden shield. Im not...it was one of the coolest things from the 2007 SC2 presentation :S T:T | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
They are changing bases, and that means that maps MUST be designed to work with the new base mechanics, as well as the new units. The main problems will come if the maps aren't iterated quickly enough to work with the new play ideas. Maps are crazy important in SC2 (and in SCBW). Units make the game work. Maps make the game work WELL. Hopefully Blizzard will just spam out like 12 different maps with 6 different map ideas (e.g. layout, bases, spawn positions etc) at 2 maps per map idea, and then people can play and work out what works well and what doesn't work well. The maps and iterating the maps will be important when they have made so many changes and hopefully they won't make too many unit changes just because there are problems with certain map types that might just not work. | ||
| ||
