|
This among many other changes we’ve tried with the HERC hasn’t turn out well for us, but this is not surprising as it really takes a lot of time and effort when it comes to new unit design iteration.
did anyone else see this sentence? how did this get through QA, like do you want me to pity you blizzard? your game is on the chopping block, i don't care if life is tough and your job is rough, you have had nearly 8 years of potential community/pro feedback and you have squandered the vast majority of it for your own internal "vision" of your game.. make the damn game fun to play and competitive or ruin it with more destructible rocks and shortsighted map pools, but honestly i couldn't care less about how "rough" the dev team has it... they brought this 100001% on themselves...
edit if -> of, typing angrily = typos
|
the DPS will only be slower. Not the entire game. Bec losing armies you build for 10 mins melts in just 5 secs is not fun to play or watch at all. Plus the 40% isn't even final yet.
|
On February 13 2015 09:55 shin_toss wrote:
the DPS will only be slower. Not the entire game. Bec losing armies you build for 10 mins melts in just 5 secs is not fun to play or watch at all. Plus the 40% isn't even final yet.
40% isn't final yet because blizzard already seemed to reach the conclusion that it is a bad change.
The whole paragraph is probably just some PR with which they either want to give feedback to those people who demand such changes, and why they aren't coming. Or they actually want to do changes in that direction and are just preparing everyone that there might be something up, so that there isn't an uprising when they come out with "we nerfed the damage of this and that unit to slow down battles".
|
Why do people keep insisting gateway units are weak? They aren't, and some of the comparisons are just absurd.Why are you still on gateway units vs bio and their medivacs or vs hydras? Heck, warpgate units alone do pretty well vs hydra tech. Chargelot, blink stalkers or just ForceFields apparently don't except for these playes who think warpgate units are weak.
|
Interesting thoughts all around.
LotV might really be one of a kind.
|
The Tempest needs to be removed. My main thought.
Somewhat slower combat like BW is greatly welcomed and places greater emphasis on micro, but only if the difficulty is increased elsewhere. BW worked because it was both not hyper fast like SC2, but also very difficult. So you got engaging and meaningful battles that didn't end instantly and also had a ridiculous skill cap to executing them correctly.
2 hyper deathballs evaporating in 3 seconds is no fun, but with SC2's extremely easy fisher-price control system I'm not if just slowing things with no other change is good. Will have to see.
On February 13 2015 10:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why do people keep insisting gateway units are weak? They aren't, and some of the comparisons are just absurd.
Just ignore. Gateway units being weak is a Protoss player myth.
|
On February 13 2015 09:54 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 09:05 KeksX wrote:
Attack speed != overall speed of the game though. It means marines will be able to walk more inbetween shots, tanks will take longer to repeatedly bash down on armies, colossi won't roast your hydras before they even approached the enemy's army etc. Attack speed != attack damage. Why would Colossi roasting Hydras change in any way? It's the burst that roasts Hydras, not sustained damage over the course of a minute...
If hydras have more time to de-ball they take less damage from AoE or rather fewer hydras take hits.
Also the argument is not that gateway units in SC2 are weak, its that they are weak without forcefields.
On February 13 2015 09:24 Tiaraju9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 08:50 KeksX wrote:On February 13 2015 08:35 Ragnarork wrote:
Interesting, but that experimentation with the "reduce by 40% the attack speed" seems a bit off... I don't think what's wanted is slower fights for the sake of being slower, it's just that units don't clump as much and the "terrible" damage... Uh, wouldn't the terrible damage be lowered? If this applies to spells as well it would do a lot. Colossus attacking 40% less often would mean that clumped units get less damage, so I think if we can't get different pathing thats the next best thing. On February 13 2015 08:46 Tiaraju9 wrote:
I'm concerned that this damage reduction change would reduce the skill ceiling too much. Everything would get easier - from blink micro, forcefields, split to defending harass on the mineral lines... You will need way less reaction time speed also.
I think that the speed and the violence of the current state of the game are charming and something that should be praised.
Look how awful Grey Goo is.
Right now most of the fights are determined pre - fight, no? I.e. how you position, when and with what you attack. During the fight it's just spam all your abilities and then move out quickly enough or go full force. Little micro involved because most of the time your micro will do less for you than it actually is gaining you apart from spellcasters. No. Your description of how the game is working right now is terribly wrong.
I can count the amount of fights decided by mainly mid-fight micro on one hand. Or maybe Im terribly wrong. Enlighten me?
|
I'm in favor of reducing the absurd speed at which armies melt, but I don't feel that reducing attack speed is the way to do it. That will just make engagements boring.
Attack speed is fine. The issues with armies melting so fast is mainly due to:
- Unit clustering due to pathing, which makes ranged unit balls ridiculously strong
- The only way to counter the unit clustering is to add insanely powerful AoE units like the baneling, window mine, and colossus which can melt an army in seconds
- Economy which allows all three races to max out much faster than they can in BW
Reducing attack speed will probably just end up reducing micro. There are better ways to fix the pace of the game rather than gutting units across the board.
|
On February 13 2015 10:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why do people keep insisting gateway units are weak? They aren't, and some of the comparisons are just absurd.Why are you still on gateway units vs bio and their medivacs or vs hydras? Heck, warpgate units alone do pretty well vs hydra tech. Chargelot, blink stalkers or just ForceFields apparently don't except for these playes who think warpgate units are weak.
Because it is, for its counter parts in other races. Zerg ling , roach/ Hydra demolish gateway units. Even more vs MM. It's supposed to be the core units of the army, but can't or can barely win against equal cost of their Z and T.
- The only way to counter the unit clustering is to add insanely powerful AoE units like the baneling, window mine, and colossus which can melt an army in seconds
Not only AoE is the issue. a stimmed MM which doesn't have AoE can melt any army that caught off guard in less than 10 secs.
|
when beta targeted date ?
|
On February 13 2015 08:30 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 07:57 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2015 07:39 darkness wrote:On February 13 2015 07:39 ZenithM wrote:
It's at least good that they try shit and aren't afraid to break the game in the process, it's pre-beta, let the crazy ideas flow and don't listen to the "b-b-but mah forcefialds!!!!" whiners. Ok, let's reduce marine's dps. How about that? Don't listen to whiners yo. I'd be fine with it, if it gave way for some other crazy change of course. Nerfs just for the sake of nerfing isn't all that fun. What is happening here is a new unit with new spells being introduced that allegedly render one of the most controversial abilities in Starcraft 2 less powerful. Call me crazy but I don't think it's that bad, really. I'd be fine if Marines took a more secondary role in favor of something else. For example, I'd trade some of my marines' power for Protoss being a more interesting race, that's how much I like the game. Manly Terrans are like that, we will take nerfs if it makes the game more interesting. Quite unlike Protoss wusses who just like ever faster oracles and tempests shooting colossus beams, and Zerg sissies who would love nothing more than cliff-hopping banelings and mutalisks spawning by pairs. It all sounds fine until you realise why Blizzard insists gateway units must be weaker. Because of force fields. If you want to make force field useless, that's fine, but you have to fix gateway then.
Hence the new gateway unit, I would venture.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
I remember when i thought about redusing overall damage by 30% to all units in WoL times or even on WoL beta.
And finally its the option... Wow!
|
On February 13 2015 10:26 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 09:54 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 13 2015 09:05 KeksX wrote:
Attack speed != overall speed of the game though. It means marines will be able to walk more inbetween shots, tanks will take longer to repeatedly bash down on armies, colossi won't roast your hydras before they even approached the enemy's army etc. Attack speed != attack damage. Why would Colossi roasting Hydras change in any way? It's the burst that roasts Hydras, not sustained damage over the course of a minute... If hydras have more time to de-ball they take less damage from AoE or rather fewer hydras take hits.
Why would Hydras have more time to de-ball? The Colossus's first attack will hit them at exactly the same time it does now.
|
On February 13 2015 10:42 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 10:26 KeksX wrote:On February 13 2015 09:54 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 13 2015 09:05 KeksX wrote:
Attack speed != overall speed of the game though. It means marines will be able to walk more inbetween shots, tanks will take longer to repeatedly bash down on armies, colossi won't roast your hydras before they even approached the enemy's army etc. Attack speed != attack damage. Why would Colossi roasting Hydras change in any way? It's the burst that roasts Hydras, not sustained damage over the course of a minute... If hydras have more time to de-ball they take less damage from AoE or rather fewer hydras take hits. Why would Hydras have more time to de-ball? The Colossus's first attack will hit them at exactly the same time it does now.
But it does not hit all of them usually. And the other hydras have a bigger timeframe to approach\position\flee before eating a round of lasers.
|
That protoss unit ability sounds like something out of a MOBA. Its interesting at the very least.
|
I like how people in the past have asked Blizzard to be more open about their development process, then we get that now and people are saying "omg blizz seriously has no clue..." "clearly blizz doesnt understand a single thing about their game" and other such hyperbolic statements... The game is in pre-alpha. Units will be added, removed, redesigned a shit ton. You think they sat down and designed SC:BW and all its units in one go without making any mistakes or something? Yeah, tier 1 burrow-movement roaches are probably too strong if they were implemented right now. Does that mean things can't change? I mean, pre-alpha is set in stone right?
The negativity of this community really gets me down sometimes... I don't know why I bother reading these threads. :/
And also wtf are wrong with current mutalisks from earlier pages in this thread? They are necessary vs Terran to shut down drops, otherwise marines/widowmines/thors absolutely annihilate them. The only game where I saw them abused recently was Life vs. Flash on Deadwing in the NSSL. He refused to make thors and Life just kept him pinned in his base otherwise. vs. Protoss they seem to be mostly a unit designed to finish a game, or some mid game harass, same as always. ZvZ well they are decent but hardly overpowered especially with the way spores are.
I've watched almost every Korean pro game this year so far. Please someone show me one game that shows mutalisks are deserving of statements like I think accepting that the mutalisk and medivac are too powerful is beyond Blizzard's collective intelligence level, given that they were already very proud they came up with the concept of enabling harassment tactics as a panacea for improved game design.
Same deal with medivacs. Please someone link me a VOD that shows medivacs are too powerful. At the highest level. Preferably within the last 6 months but anything might do...
Am I making too big a deal over regular balance whining or something? Maybe I'm just having a bad week...
|
The lowering of DPS might be a good change but 40% is a bit too much imo. 15-30% would be more reasonable.
|
On February 13 2015 10:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why do people keep insisting gateway units are weak? They aren't, and some of the comparisons are just absurd.Why are you still on gateway units vs bio and their medivacs or vs hydras? Heck, warpgate units alone do pretty well vs hydra tech. Chargelot, blink stalkers or just ForceFields apparently don't except for these playes who think warpgate units are weak.
Because Stalkers lose to every ground unit in the game for cost. Of course Zealot-Sentry is beastly for cost and because of warpgate, Protoss can hit some sick timings where they have the perfect number and mix of gateway units to overwhelm poorly prepared players.
The point still stands though, gateway units, overall, are weaker than the equivalents from the other two races. Ling-Roach beats gateway units for cost (unless seriously outmicroed on favourable terrain) and MM likewise trashes it (although only in medium and above numbers, in small numbers, Toss can and does win which is why 1 gateway expand works).
If gateway units won for cost, Toss would be close to unbeatable, because of warpgates (as they currently stand). That's not the same thing as saying gateway units are trash though - Stalkers are a great unit with one quasi-weakness: straight-up fights. Zealots are actually bullshit strong and sentries make me rage when I'm not Toss. But if you a-move tier one units together, there's no Protoss left at the end.
|
Terran again bio. What an how was it called .. a yes...remarkable approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
