|
On November 09 2014 02:05 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 02:01 Hider wrote:On November 09 2014 01:56 H0i wrote:On November 09 2014 01:52 LaLuSh wrote:On November 09 2014 01:47 dutchfriese wrote:On November 09 2014 01:36 LaLuSh wrote:
God they didn't change how mining works. Just mineral nodes.
So disappointing. Did you think they would? I doubt even the current pros would have wanted them to change it after playing sc2 for so long. If they're willing to change nodes from 1500 to a 1000 and starting workers to 12, then yes; the answer is they already made changes of roughly the same scale. Why wouldn't I expect them to? There's no reason they couldn't make proper economy changes and stop with these patented half-measures of theirs. Supposedly, in the new maps there will be 6 mineral patches per base instead of 8; we did not see this during the showmatches because they played on old maps. Wasn't this exactly what FRB had tested around 2 years ago and concluded it didn't work because the defenders advantage was reduced simultaneously. In order for the whole spread-out to work you you have to make sure that the defenders advantage is high enough so it's possible to spread out and not just die to one big army. Moreover, it also needs to be possible to defend bases while investing into offensive units/playing aggressively simultaneously. Howeve,r in order do that, there needs to be groundbreaking changes to Starcraft (high ground advantage isn't enough). This would be better because? BW economy rewarding taking extra bases, but didn't force the race/playstyles which were less mobile to take as many bases. The economy model in LOTV forces everyone to take bases as fast as possible, which is more likely to create more passive gameplay than vice versa. Im not sure how you would play passive when you need to stop your oponent from out expanding you. Especially considering everyone now have units and ways of breaking turteling.
Assuming you play an immobile/defensive playstyle and the enemy a more mobile one, then he is more likely to come out ahead if both of you try to play aggressively. The reason for that is that it's easier for the mobile race to attack and defend many bases at once while the immobile player cannot do that. So if you try to play aggressively while simultaenously attempting to defend many bases at once, you won't be able to defend a straight up timing attack. At least not without any additional buff to the defenders advantage which is why FRB (according to the maker) failed.
So instead, the defensive player is more likely to invest the majority of his ressources into securing expansions which potentitally could stale the game if he is playing well enough. If on the other hand, he could sit on fewer bases he could afford to invest alot more into harass as he didn't have to worry about defending like 5 bases at the 14th minute mark.
Pros can multitask and harass while taking multiple base. Multiple bases greatly increase the effectiveness and importance of harass.
Taking a base actually has "real" costs to it. It's not just something that takes mechanical skills, but you need to invest either defensive structures or defensive units to defend the extra bases. This means that you cannot afford to invest the same amount into harass/offensive harass.
As the the immobile race you simply cannot make a timing back at the 14th minute mark while defending 5 bases simultaenously.
The viability of harass is actually inversely correlated to how many bases you yourself is on, but positively correlated to how many bases your enemy is on. So if you want to buff harassplay, then you should be able to stay on fewer bases, but the enemy should take more bases (that was what the BW economy incentized).
|
Oh yeah baby! Photon overcharge now can't hit air, it means muta will wreck toss. Immortal passive hardened shield removed - good for roaches and mech. Tempests can't shoot air - broodlords will return, because tempest's ability doesn't make instant damage, but it makes 500 damage over 50 seconds - enough time to heal broodlords with queen's transfusion. And ofcourse warpgate nerf means defensive warp ins won't work against terran drops. The irony is that protoss got nerfed in their own expansion xD
|
Feels like Z and T are done quite well. P feels very much nerfed and just lost options instead of gaining them...
|
On November 09 2014 02:09 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 02:06 mikumegurine wrote:
hmmm so Protoss only gets 1 new unit
and Zerg only gets 1 new unit and 1 (BW unit lurker)....
there might be more new units added right?.... DK said that they might add one more unit for Protoss, but that is it. I don't think that 2 units per race is bad at all, to be honest I've expected one. Also, they have changed a lot of old units.
yea i know they changed alot of the old units, but thats kinda just like balancing the existing game
but shiny new models is kinda what justifies a new expansion, price etc
imagine if they there were no new units whatsoever, and all they did was change the the old units in the SC2 map editor, put in a campaign, then calling it an expansion and charging $40-50 for that...yea would be kinda weird huh...
BW final (only) expansion for SC added like 6 or 7 new units or something?
|
I am really hyped and hope ppl will test the game thouroughly before warhounding a unit out of the game.
|
On November 09 2014 02:21 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 02:09 Ramiz1989 wrote:On November 09 2014 02:06 mikumegurine wrote:
hmmm so Protoss only gets 1 new unit
and Zerg only gets 1 new unit and 1 (BW unit lurker)....
there might be more new units added right?.... DK said that they might add one more unit for Protoss, but that is it. I don't think that 2 units per race is bad at all, to be honest I've expected one. Also, they have changed a lot of old units. yea i know they changed alot of the old units but shiny new models is kinda what justifies a new expansion, price etc imagine if they there were no new units whatsoever, and all they did was change the the old units in the SC2 map editor, put in a campaign, then calling it an expansion and charging $40-50 for that...yea would be kinda weird huh... BW final (only) expansion for SC added like 6 or 7 new units or something?
BW added
2 Terran units , + Goliath Range
3 Protoss units
2 Zerg units + Upgrade for Ultralisk
On November 09 2014 02:15 TheWildShooter wrote:
Oh yeah baby! Photon overcharge now can't hit air, it means muta will wreck toss. Immortal passive hardened shield removed - good for roaches and mech. Tempests can't shoot air - broodlords will return, because tempest's ability doesn't make instant damage, but it makes 500 damage over 50 seconds - enough time to heal broodlords with queen's transfusion. And ofcourse warpgate nerf means defensive warp ins won't work against terran drops. The irony is that protoss got nerfed in their own expansion xD
Hell it is about time 
|
I personnaly am a big fan of all of those DRASTIC changes SC2 needed them. Even if it turns not working out. At least they try real changes with big impacts.
I can see SC2 finally evolving now.
|
On November 09 2014 02:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 01:56 H0i wrote:On November 09 2014 01:52 LaLuSh wrote:On November 09 2014 01:47 dutchfriese wrote:On November 09 2014 01:36 LaLuSh wrote:
God they didn't change how mining works. Just mineral nodes.
So disappointing. Did you think they would? I doubt even the current pros would have wanted them to change it after playing sc2 for so long. If they're willing to change nodes from 1500 to a 1000 and starting workers to 12, then yes; the answer is they already made changes of roughly the same scale. Why wouldn't I expect them to? There's no reason they couldn't make proper economy changes and stop with these patented half-measures of theirs. Supposedly, in the new maps there will be 6 mineral patches per base instead of 8; we did not see this during the showmatches because they played on old maps. Wasn't this exactly what FRB had tested around 2 years ago and concluded it didn't work because the defenders advantage was reduced simultaneously. In order for the whole spread-out to work you you have to make sure that the defenders advantage is high enough so it's possible to spread out and not just die to one big army. Moreover, it also needs to be possible to defend bases while investing into offensive units/playing aggressively simultaneously. Howeve,r in order do that, there needs to be groundbreaking changes to Starcraft (high ground advantage isn't enough).
I feel like you didn't watch or hear about any of the changes. There are units that do just that (the Cyclone gives defenders adv. by being aggressive with the hight mobility and long-ish range coupled with micro. Zerg gets Lurcs and Protoss has Nexus cannon. Another aspect to this is that the hard counters are toned down a lot. So Siege Tanks for example, in defensive positions, are not as easy to break as before (changed Immortals and Shs)
In the breath of gameplay thread, Barrin compares the game to League of Legends where players are spread out, but that's possible becasue of defensive towers. These defensive towers can then be slowly broken if you outplay your opponent and use minions to soak up the towers shots. Such a solution is extremely difficult to get to work in Starcraft. BW economy rewarding taking extra bases, but didn't force the race/playstyles which were less mobile to take as many bases. The economy model in LOTV forces everyone to take bases as fast as possible, which is more likely to create more passive gameplay than vice versa.
I see a common misconception here.
Strong defensive play is not achieved just through units in defensive positions, but also through strong harass (that demands that the opponent react, thus not attacking you!) The MOBA solution of super super strong static is one solution, hardly the most exciting for an RTS.
|
this is so fucking amazing!!!! wow! just awesome!! finally the drastic changes the game needs!!! more AoE units and more bases needed = less deathball play possible, more multitasking and more fights all over the place while more AoE units also mean better space control so comebacks are possible since you cant just win a deathball fight like now and run over your opponent!
sooooooooo hyped!!! :-)
|
On November 09 2014 02:38 Decendos wrote:
this is so fucking amazing!!!! wow! just awesome!! finally the drastic changes the game needs!!! more AoE units and more bases needed = less deathball play possible, more multitasking and more fights all over the place while more AoE units also mean better space control so comebacks are possible since you cant just win a deathball fight like now and run over your opponent!
sooooooooo hyped!!! :-)
I like your attitude. Also I fully agree.
|
I feel like you didn't watch or hear about any of the changes.
You have to be kidding me. I watched both games twice and the videos 5 times and just spent like 5 hours reading all of the threads on reddit on Teamliquid... If anything I spent way too much time here.
There are units that do just that (the Cyclone gives defenders adv. by being aggressive with the hight mobility and long-ish range coupled with micro. Zerg gets Lurcs and Protoss has Nexus cannon. Another aspect to this is that the hard counters are toned down a lot. So Siege Tanks for example, in defensive positions, are not as easy to break as before (changed Immortals and Shs)
So I don't think you understand my point here. The issue isn't that Tanks can't hold position if you mass enough of them and turtle. You can do that in HOTS and you will still be able to do that in LOTV. Instead, the issue is that you cannot defend multiple locations at once while being aggressive in some sort of shape. If you watch the video, notice that 3 immortals still beat 5 tanks, so terran cannot just spread out a couple of tanks everywhere and still be fine. He still has to move his units in a ball becasue the defenders advantage just isn't there.
Also note that the solution here isn't to buff tanks, because that will buff them both when they are in a ball and when they are spread out. The issue is that there is no natural defenders advantage which makes this type of spread-out economy work as it does in MOBA's. That's why every map/mod which has tried to make this work has failed.
Strong defensive play is not achieved just through units in defensive positions, but also through strong harass (that demands that the opponent react, thus not attacking you!) The MOBA solution of super super strong static is one solution, hardly the most exciting for an RTS.
This sounds like you have been watching too much Day9 and played/analyzed the game yourself too litte. Here is a practical example: If you play bio vs mech in Sc2 you can ignore hellions killing 20 workers in one base if you can just straight up kill the enemy mech player. In HOTS; however, the bio-player cannot do that as the mech player isn't forced to spread out that much. But if he has to defend 4 bases at 12 minute mark with like 6-7 siege tanks.... GL with that.
But your right, I don't agree with the MOBA solution either in Sc2. That's why BW economy > SC2 economy >>>>>>>> LOTV economy.
|
On November 09 2014 00:35 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:32 Yonnua wrote:On November 08 2014 22:41 KingAlphard wrote:On November 08 2014 22:34 Yonnua wrote:On November 08 2014 22:13 Sapphire.lux wrote:On November 08 2014 20:59 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 08 2014 20:52 Doublemint wrote:On November 08 2014 20:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
As a protoss i don't see anything positive except warp prism, Photon overcharge dont shoot at air? What? Why with 12 workers? This is horrible, we need 6 as standart. Protoss addon with shittiest protoss changes, at l;east give me THE REAVER.
Nerfed warp :/
Am speechless At a first glance it looks like Toss got the shorter end of the stick, though nothing is set in stone. As hard as it may be we have to trust in Blizzard to make the right calls after the actual testing. Just all stop with the whine already. This is the avilosation of the SC community. Pitiful. Why shouldn't I whine? Almost everything that has been announced goes counter to the things that I actually like about the game. If the game is released as described then I already know that I will not like it =/ EDIT: It's almost like a completely different game. WoL and HotS are ultimately very similar to one another, whereas LotV is going to have massive changes. I've spent a lot of time playing WoL and HotS and I really like them. I do not like what I am seeing about LotV. Literally going to lose something that I love doing and watching if these changes go through. It's pretty sad. So yes, whining. And lots of it -_- No one is going to take your 1a Protoss deathball away; you can still play HOTS. If anything the game is heading more in that direction; cutting out early aggression and making it harder to hit quick timings by nerfing warp-in speed (i.e. it's harder to warp in offensively but not at home where your deathball is. The changes push protoss more in that direction while cutting out fun aggressive options as much as possible. Warp prism harass is pretty much dead with the warp-in changes. How is warp prism harass dead? Most of the times your units won't be attacked while warping in. Also it reduces your defensive options too, for example if you are being dropped or being attacked by a ling runby you can't warp in units right there so easily. Early aggression isn't cut out at all. You just have early cheese with more units because of the better economy. I disagree with this nerf and I think (hope) it won't pass the beta but I don't see it changing the game drastically. Have you ever done warp prism harass vs zerg? Your units get attacked while building all the time and the time taken to warp in units massively effects how many prongs you can attack on. If you start warping in in a zerg main they now have loads more time to get their units over there to defend. Any build that starts from 9-14 supply is now gone, so basically any gateway pressure in PvP or PvT is gone, anything before stargate/robo is gone in all matchups. Making claims about new early game timings before anyone has played a single game is ridicolous. Just wait and see what happens.
Silliest riposte ever. You could and I did call the problems HoTS would have from the release notes. You can entirely do some theory crafting and be on the money if your intuition is good enough.
edit: Lol. Protoss can't have reavers but they just gave terrans something better. T_T
edit2: Dare I say it. The cyclone might actually be worse than the war hound. Someone should be losing their job.
|
Progamers respond to incentives. They don't give two fucks about what game designers want them to be doing. Progamers play to win.
Rather than encourage and incentivize aggression on the part of the aggressor, the new mining mechanic works more along the lines of promoting a sense of desperation with the defender. This being the major reason it will probably backfire completely.
The mining changes do not encourage more bases. They just put players on an artificial clock to replace current bases. It doesn't distinguish play styles from eachother at all in the first 15-20 minutes. But what happens after that?
The biggest critique I have for Blizzard's chosen economy change is that it does nothing to naturally incentivize action. It's merely another artificial timer added on top of numerous other already existing artificial caps which will serve to enforce player action by game-design as opposed to letting the players themselves shape the flow of the game.
It doesn't let the defenders stay defensive in order to methodically inch themselves to a win. It doesn't require increased risk taking on part of the attacker (three simultaneously mining bases is still the maximum). Similarly it does nothing to encourage the attacker to play to win through attacking and being active, but rather encourages the race with the superior 15-20 minute composition to merely "choke out" their opponent.
It has more potential to backfire than it has to succeed. It enforces action through desperation as opposed to letting players shape the flow and the style of play.
|
Audiences absolutely hate it when game design is more influential in deciding outcome and flow of gameplay than players themselves are.
|
On November 09 2014 01:36 LaLuSh wrote:
God they didn't change how mining works. Just mineral nodes.
So disappointing.
What is the change to mining you/people are looking for?
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
hi guys,
did you notice 2 things in terran cinematics:
* marauders shoot twice with each attack - new attack?
* battlecruisers kill stuff much quicker (killed probes in 3-4 shots) - attack damage increased?
|
On November 09 2014 02:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 02:05 ddayzy wrote:On November 09 2014 02:01 Hider wrote:On November 09 2014 01:56 H0i wrote:On November 09 2014 01:52 LaLuSh wrote:On November 09 2014 01:47 dutchfriese wrote:On November 09 2014 01:36 LaLuSh wrote:
God they didn't change how mining works. Just mineral nodes.
So disappointing. Did you think they would? I doubt even the current pros would have wanted them to change it after playing sc2 for so long. If they're willing to change nodes from 1500 to a 1000 and starting workers to 12, then yes; the answer is they already made changes of roughly the same scale. Why wouldn't I expect them to? There's no reason they couldn't make proper economy changes and stop with these patented half-measures of theirs. Supposedly, in the new maps there will be 6 mineral patches per base instead of 8; we did not see this during the showmatches because they played on old maps. Wasn't this exactly what FRB had tested around 2 years ago and concluded it didn't work because the defenders advantage was reduced simultaneously. In order for the whole spread-out to work you you have to make sure that the defenders advantage is high enough so it's possible to spread out and not just die to one big army. Moreover, it also needs to be possible to defend bases while investing into offensive units/playing aggressively simultaneously. Howeve,r in order do that, there needs to be groundbreaking changes to Starcraft (high ground advantage isn't enough). This would be better because? BW economy rewarding taking extra bases, but didn't force the race/playstyles which were less mobile to take as many bases. The economy model in LOTV forces everyone to take bases as fast as possible, which is more likely to create more passive gameplay than vice versa. Im not sure how you would play passive when you need to stop your oponent from out expanding you. Especially considering everyone now have units and ways of breaking turteling. Assuming you play an immobile/defensive playstyle and the enemy a more mobile one, then he is more likely to come out ahead if both of you try to play aggressively. The reason for that is that it's easier for the mobile race to attack and defend many bases at once while the immobile player cannot do that. So if you try to play aggressively while simultaenously attempting to defend many bases at once, you won't be able to defend a straight up timing attack. At least not without any additional buff to the defenders advantage which is why FRB (according to the maker) failed. So instead, the defensive player is more likely to invest the majority of his ressources into securing expansions which potentitally could stale the game if he is playing well enough. If on the other hand, he could sit on fewer bases he could afford to invest alot more into harass as he didn't have to worry about defending like 5 bases at the 14th minute mark.
Which is why, I imagin, they are making all the races more mobile and given them ways to break turteling players. Everything they have announced so far, to me at least, screams that they dont want stalemates with some harassment, they want more dynamic games with many tech switches, agression and base taking. The changes to races seems to compliment this concept. When you run out of minerals this much faster and every race has ways to break a defense I don't see how you can turtle on 2/3 bases regardless of how good you are. You wont trade cost efficient as the attacker if your oponent truly turtles but you can trade resonably which will win you the game because of how fast the defender runs dry.
|
oh my god...lurker is back. Zerg looks extremly powerful at least from my Terran perspective.
|
Loving the radical changes. Think BIG Blizzard!
|
On November 09 2014 02:24 Quixotic_tv wrote:
I am really hyped and hope ppl will test the game thouroughly before warhounding a unit out of the game.
This is the internet - do not expect reason nor patience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
