Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 16

RHoudini

Belgium3628 Posts

December 18 2014 11:22 GMT

#301

On December 18 2014 04:06 EatThePath wrote:
Why do I get the impression whenever I read these that the sc2 design team has no idea what it's doing.

Exactly. It feels like they're just doing some random stuff and hope that eventually something will work out.
Then again, the lack of any other competitive RTS videogame suggests that this genre is really, really difficult.

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

December 18 2014 11:29 GMT

#302

On December 18 2014 20:06 RaFox17 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 18 2014 11:05 Big J wrote:
Protoss Gateway unit idea, lorewise it is Nerazim

*insert Protoss name*
*some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar*
Cost 75/75/2
80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological
Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5
Attack range 5, ground only
speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach)
size: like a zealot
drop-size: 2

Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack.
tech requirement: twilight council

Stats Analysis:
good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading
can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus
mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it
quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot
does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers

Strategically:
The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect.
From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave.
It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.

Tactically:
The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive.
While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.

Thumbs up!

Ninja Edit, muhaha

Markwerf

Netherlands3728 Posts

December 18 2014 11:29 GMT

#303

starts to look a lot better.

Different mineral patches is a good idea, forces players to spread out to more bases faster but also actually have more operational bases which just depleting every patch doesn't really do.

Terran changes I don't know. Splitting air upgrades is good I think, as it creates more options, now it's just mech+air or bio and more mixes should be potentially viable. Just make it cheap enough.
Herc and cyclone unit still feel a bit overlapping and a bit mediocre.

Zerg looks very cool so far, love the roach upgrade and the lurker is awesome. Some other changes like removing ultralisk upgrade, tweaking infestor more all look good.

Protoss changes seem very lackluster so far. New unit feels kinda stupid and that's about it. Some new options definately needed here.

Sapphire.lux

Romania2620 Posts

December 18 2014 11:53 GMT

#304

Seems nice, except the PO shooting air again kills Banshees openings and also enough with the Protoss harass options. The last thing they need is another opening that can kill the game if not scouted in time.

AmericanUmlaut

Germany2597 Posts

December 18 2014 11:54 GMT

#305

I'm not really persuaded by the mineral patch idea. With a typical upper limit of about 70 active workers, once you've gone to the trouble of securing a base with 8 patches, and if it's a major increase in the risk of taking harass damage to spread your workers over more bases, then you can just transfer all workers from a partially mining base to a fully mining base. At least until you're out of bases to expand to, the change doesn't negate the basic problem that there is no marginal advantage from having more than three actively mining bases.

-Celestial-

United Kingdom3867 Posts

December 18 2014 12:07 GMT

#306

Protoss needs > Solid core unit that can help remove the need for ridiculously quick teching.

Solution > Harass unit (?), that's slow (???) and can go invulnerable (?????).

...what?

On the whole I like these changes but the design philosophy for the new Protoss unit they want to put in just seems bizarre.

ejozl

Denmark3552 Posts

December 18 2014 12:22 GMT

#307

On December 18 2014 20:54 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
I'm not really persuaded by the mineral patch idea. With a typical upper limit of about 70 active workers, once you've gone to the trouble of securing a base with 8 patches, and if it's a major increase in the risk of taking harass damage to spread your workers over more bases, then you can just transfer all workers from a partially mining base to a fully mining base. At least until you're out of bases to expand to, the change doesn't negate the basic problem that there is no marginal advantage from having more than three actively mining bases.

It will create more scenarios where players don't get to the 3 base economy so easily. Once you've gotten a lockdown on even 4 base, your main is mined out and your natural is on half the patches.
I find this change damn sexy! and minerals gone overall means less big balls of doom.

beyondOnesGrasp

3 Posts

December 18 2014 12:46 GMT

#308

Soooooo hard to say if i like these changes without playing games with them. Gimme Alpha, and then i'll play test. Then i can say if i like each one of these.

Startyr

Scotland188 Posts

December 18 2014 13:01 GMT

#309

For a protoss unit, I like the idea of something like this

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Soul_hunter#StarCraft_II

With an arcing or multishot attack and swap the empowering ability for the 'phase shift'

As well as harrasing in small numbers it could fit with zealot/archon and use its invulnerable phase to absorb things like mine shots,

Also potentially a ground unit that could help defend against mutalisks, without being forced to need phoenix.

PineapplePizza

United States749 Posts

December 18 2014 13:04 GMT

#310

Have they ever explained why they wouldn't go back to StarCraft 1's economy?

Are they still going to go without a high ground advantage?

Does nobody want them to tone down the spawn-larvae style abilities?

404AlphaSquad

839 Posts

December 18 2014 13:07 GMT

#311

On December 18 2014 22:04 PineapplePizza wrote:
Have they ever explained why they wouldn't go back to StarCraft 1's economy?

Are they still going to go without a high ground advantage?

Does nobody want them to tone down the spawn-larvae style abilities?

No(some stuff about not beeing visible)

yes

I want to, but most people dont.

ZenithM

France15952 Posts

December 18 2014 13:09 GMT

#312

I don't know what people are thinking when they're disliking the worker count. That shit can only be good for the playability of the game. It puts the game at a stage where you directly have to make a decision most of the time, this is good. What are people afraid of? No early Tastosis banter early game?
The number of interesting builds who rely on a earlier worker count are not worth keeping the game super slow to start for all the other builds. One thing that it won't do is kill cheese. It will just spawn other cheese or proxy builds. No 6pool though. Are we really going to miss that?

Flood1993

Spain61 Posts

December 18 2014 13:12 GMT

#313

Reduce mineral count to 7 per base. Initial worker count to 10. Increase slightly the worker speed/mining time in order to change mining efficiency?

Redesign mothership core completely. Horrible design for interesting gameplay IMO. Even take it away along with the sentry and give protoss another unit so that they have a decent army out of gateways and not have to rely on forcefields.

Maybe give a modified version of the cyclone to Protoss? And take it away from Terran. I don't like the Herc change at all... Knock back? What's next? Stun? Really...

Maybe it would be a great idea for Protoss to get a ranged (only vs ground?), light unit from the gateway and then make Stalker a little bit more expensive but also make it do full damage vs everything instead of only vs armored. This unit could shoot while moving in order to chase bio or something (without additional damage vs light). Stalker could even require Twilight Council tech if the other unit was well designed. And make force-field targetable (or however its written).

I was thinking also about a unit that could climb up cliffs, but not down (harassing option for the zerg maybe?), but I'm not sure if it would fit in any race right now. Perhaps an upgrade or ability for the Ravager. (Sacrifice them in order to snipe some workers or something).

Armory upgrade for reactored tech lab? (Then you have to upgrade them manually so they cost the same coming from reactor or tech lab)

Make Xel'Naga towers destructible too.

Make overseers poop larva for the same cost of changelings.

Protoss gateways produce faster than its warpgate counterpart.

Reduce viking transformation timings in order to allow for more harassing options.

I don't know the current state of the siege tank drop mechanics, but it should be able to be picked when in siege mode but be in unsiege mode when dropped (have an animation on the medivac so you can't insta drop them).

Maybe make lair and hive produce larva faster or allow for 2 queen production at the same time. It could even be an upgrade.

And please don't put in any units which gain invulnerability...

Please Blizzard, test crazy ideas now that not even the beta is out...

Jenia6109

Russian Federation1613 Posts

December 18 2014 13:36 GMT

#314

Phase Shift to Dark Templar + Reaver
Or Reaver with Phase Shift (slow unit!!!)

[PkF] Wire

France24239 Posts

December 18 2014 13:39 GMT

#315

I'd have liked to have some update on Warpgate by the way. I don't really like the way they're doing it ; instead of making defensive warp-ins (which are needed) quite useless, why don't they try to give us any incentive to use gateways or only weaken offensive warp-ins ? With the greater need to expand quickly, I fear that with such a heavy WG nerf P will be in trouble while you'll still have to use warpgates because they have faster cycles. That doesn't seem to be the right way to deal with the issue -if there is any.

Dingodile

4139 Posts

December 18 2014 13:55 GMT

#316

On December 18 2014 20:22 RHoudini wrote:

Show nested quote +

Rather that you dont like these design changes (another hardcounter unit etc), that why you think they have no clue about it.

I highly dislike their complete sc2 design. I dont care about balance if there are too many NoFun and trash units, to many units with almost no micro potential. Many units with bad interaction etc.

ZAiNs

United Kingdom6525 Posts

December 18 2014 14:00 GMT

#317

On December 18 2014 22:12 Flood1993 wrote:
Please Blizzard, test crazy ideas now that not even the beta is out...

They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.

It’s really not possible to definitively say how good or bad a change is until we’ve had a lot of playtesting. Recently we’ve seen some feedback and discussion turn into definitive conclusions on certain subjects, many of which differ from what we’re seeing in our internal playtesting. We’d like to make sure that everyone understands that nothing is final, and while the discussion on these changes is helpful, there’s no need to overreact to any of these changes we’ve previewed so far. There will be a time for everyone to test these changes personally and see how they play out. We’d really love to heavily test various, sometimes more extreme, ideas during the upcoming Beta.

weikor

Austria580 Posts

December 18 2014 14:05 GMT

#318

im ok with nerfs to protoss. Sure WG will hurt a lot , however since we can assume that blizzard wont ignore the problems of a certain race in the final expansio, im positive we will gain things to compensate and help us defend. In the end i hope theu make more "silly" changes that lead to fixes in the end.

Flood1993

Spain61 Posts

December 18 2014 14:17 GMT

#319

On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote:
They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.

Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

December 18 2014 14:22 GMT

#320

On December 18 2014 23:17 Flood1993 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...

I'm cautiously optimistic, so far they already seem to be willing to make more big changes than in HotS.