EPTJan 20 Balance Test Map Update - Swarm Host & Raven - Page…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On January 21 2015 07:09 Liquid`Snute wrote: lol you guys, i adapt to what's strong, it's not coincidence that i play swarm host right now and if it doesn't work anymore i'll do something else. winning is winning and learning how to win is becoming less and less of a problem to me as time goes on  as for the patch itself i don't have too many thoughts of it besides RIP brood lord, most neglected Z unit in the game just became even more useless. U wanna make a comparison with Broodlord vs Carrier? :D both are pretty useless, well, battlecruiser probably stands near. And yea, please, I wanna play my PvT with templar openings  | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On January 21 2015 20:54 SatedSC2 wrote: Still spawns free-units. Ergo, still anti-RTS. You can't balance free units in an economy-driven game. I'd rather have a reworked SH than nothing, though. Blizzard is never-ever going to remove a unit sadly, otherwise there'd be a couple gone already. | ||
|
Homunculus159
Austria220 Posts
On January 21 2015 20:53 JCoto wrote: You just described the real problem. A tech replaces the other one. And now, thinking about numbers, just imagine how hard is to kill a big locust wave without splash damage. Then imagine that applied in the air terrain. Then, that situation is real and the only counter is than using mass thors or mass archons/phoenix. (extremely cost innefficient given the cost/risk for the zerg player). They should buff broodlords control and micro, giving them some speed, range and maybe +1 armor and lowering morphing times for Greter Spire and BL cocoon. This automatically helps the Zerg lategame, breaks the stalemate, gives them more cost efficiency as they can flee much better. More speed + some range are needed for the Broodlord and would lead to interesting battles. Then , rethink the Swarmhost for a midgame viable and interesting choice. And start balancing PDD and Tempests then after the broodlords are viable and not a damn flying brick (as a Protoss player I think that the Tempest damage is out of control). Yeah tempests needs a nerf so BCs can be used in TvP and Broodlords in ZvP. Yeah your points are valid but its a start that they are changing the Sh. We will see how it works out in testing | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
SonGoku
Germany152 Posts
Vulture (with mines) for Terran -> Remove Hellion and Widow Mine Lurker for Zerg -> Remove Swarmhost -> get epic game back | ||
|
Homunculus159
Austria220 Posts
On January 21 2015 20:56 KeksX wrote: I'd rather have a reworked SH than nothing, though. Blizzard is never-ever going to remove a unit sadly, otherwise there'd be a couple gone already. I dunno. They also removed the warhound and if the Sh turns out to not being able to be balanced i can sse a removal of the unit | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On January 21 2015 20:59 Homunculus159 wrote: I dunno. They also removed the warhound and if the Sh turns out to not being able to be balanced i can sse a removal of the unit They removed the warhound off a beta. They introduce and scratch a unit all the time in production, but they never do it on a released product. So yeah, every unit that is in the game now will stay in there forever. Because ... I don't know. On January 21 2015 20:57 SatedSC2 wrote: I'd rather have the brains of the design-team members responsible for the SH reworked. That would also be better than nothing. I'd like to know how many people are involved in the first place. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On January 21 2015 21:02 SatedSC2 wrote: There is this game called BW. You should try playing that instead... I'll trade colosus for reaver even in sc2, any day, any year. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
The problem remains that the Swarm Host is able to deal damage without taking any risk whatsoever Exactly. It really doesn't much as much difference whether SHs will be used defensively or offensively if the unit-interaction consist of free units attacking enemy units from a 30-range distance. Compare that to somone dropping Marines from a Medivac and the enemy zerg player trying to deal with that by splitting up his Muta/bling army. The latter actually creates interesting interactions while the former maintains the main issue with free units and long range. Free units can be interesting if the "spawning unit" needs to be close to the battle. For instance, I like the concept behind ITs on the Infestor as the Infestor needs to be part of the actual engagement, and if you harass with it you neeed to get into the enemy base (not 100% sold on the actual implementation of the ITs though - but the concept works unlike any of the SHs concepts). | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On January 21 2015 21:12 Hider wrote: Exactly. It really doesn't much as much difference whether SHs will be used defensively or offensively if the unit-interaction consist of free units attacking enemy units from a 30-range distance. Compare that to somone dropping Marines from a Medivac and the enemy zerg player trying to deal with that by splitting up his Muta/bling army. The latter actually creates interesting interactions while the former maintains the main issue with free units and long range. Free units can be interesting if the "spawning unit" needs to be close to the battle. For instance, I like the concept behind ITs on the Infestor as the Infestor needs to be part of the actual engagement, and if you harass with it you neeed to get into the enemy base (not 100% sold on the actual implementation of the ITs though - but the concept works unlike any of the SHs concepts). Honestly the SH is probably better off removed (a worse designed toxic version of the Lurker which is a unit that they avoided out of pride but ended up adding in LoTV anyways), but I'll take a harassment focused SH over the current one any day. | ||
|
syroz
France249 Posts
It is very couragous but it will change the game balance drastically. I don't know yet if it's a good idea. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 21 2015 21:54 syroz wrote: It's strange. Such a core change before LotV. It is very couragous but it will change the game balance drastically. I don't know yet if it's a good idea. I wish they went through with many more of those changes before LotV. Like the warpgate one would be really nice and the state of warpgate has been critizised for 4.5years now. | ||
|
Weavel
Finland9221 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
Using the gaz on mutas will be far more effective and you will have more army for less supply. Sadly Mutas is an unreliable style on ZvP, it's rely only on surprise. No protoss will loose vs a Zerg who always go mutas. The only option is Broodlord but a heavy nerf on skytoss is needed with nerfing HT/tempest and void ray. Or you can just make Protoss auto win after 20min | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On January 21 2015 21:12 Hider wrote: Exactly. It really doesn't much as much difference whether SHs will be used defensively or offensively if the unit-interaction consist of free units attacking enemy units from a 30-range distance. Compare that to somone dropping Marines from a Medivac and the enemy zerg player trying to deal with that by splitting up his Muta/bling army. The latter actually creates interesting interactions while the former maintains the main issue with free units and long range. Free units can be interesting if the "spawning unit" needs to be close to the battle. For instance, I like the concept behind ITs on the Infestor as the Infestor needs to be part of the actual engagement, and if you harass with it you neeed to get into the enemy base (not 100% sold on the actual implementation of the ITs though - but the concept works unlike any of the SHs concepts). Artillery units have existed from the start of RTS games. Only difference with SH is their projectiles are slower and killable | ||
| ||
