EPTNeither do thors. BW goliaths seem more responsive.
Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 24
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
Neither do thors. BW goliaths seem more responsive. | ||
|
FuzzyKuriboh
United States2 Posts
Zealot Remove charge. Increase natural move speed with upgrade (like BW). Positioning zealots to be in front and getting surrounds becomes more important. New unit - the Cragoon Costs ~120/50/2. Built at gateway after getting cybercore. 5 range. Attacks ground only. Speed ~2.25-2.5. HP/shield = 80/80. Around 6-7 dps. Can research an ability at cybercore for 100/100/100s that gives new unit ability to recharge other units shield by depleting its own shield by twice the amount (so it depletes entire shield after recharging 40 shield to another unit). Shield recharge rate is ~1/2 the rate of medivac heal (probably need to play around with this to balance correctly). Cragoons can't attack while using ability. Ability can be autocast. This should help toss in the midgame and force them to make a decision of whether to research warpgate or this ability first. Small clusters of Cragoon/zealot should be able to fight fairly well with small clusters of MM or ling/roach. Micro is rewarded to the opponent by targeting down units. Toss will also have to make the choice of whether the Cragoon should attack or heal. Sentry Guardian shield costs 50 energy. Forcefield costs 75 energy so it can't be abused without significantly investing in sentries. Stalker Now requires twilight council to make. Costs ~175/125 but can be scaled appropriately. HP/shield = 100/100. Higher DPS to reflect increase in cost. Still can research blink. Stalker now becomes stronger midgame unit, but requires more tech and time to build to prevent blink stalker snowballing. However, toss might become significantly weaker against drops. MSC Remove photon overcharge. Maybe even remove the unit entirely and give recall to the oracle or something. Oracle Remove the stupid pulsar beam ability. Replace with normal attack similar to arbiter in BW. Slightly increase HP. Replace stasis trap with stasis field and require stasis field upgade from fleet beacon. Keep the combined revelation/detection ability. Oracle becomes a support unit that can scout in the midgame. Warp prism Revert the drop range back to HOTS. Collosus Don't know about this one. Basically toss needs something AOE without a hard counter but also doesn't shred armies in 1 second. I'm thinking something like cut dps in half, shrink AOE, costs 250/175. Slightly lower movespeed. Remove range upgrade. Can no longer be targeted by air. Other Personally, I think the fights are too short because there's too much AOE in the game. Rather than reduce game speed, just reduce the AOE range of everything (siege tanks, mines, storm, fungal, emp, colossus, etc...) Increase size of marines slightly so that they don't clump so much. This will lower the amount of DPS they dish/take. For economy changes, I don't like the 12 workers since that basically eliminates early game. I would prefer the HOTS economy, but just remove 2 mineral patches per game, so that optimal/full saturation is 12/18 per base. Thanks for reading! Edit: also remove the disruptor. Invincible AOE units are stupid. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
Scan range experimentation We've also seen some community feedback about changes that can be made to the scan range to increase the responsiveness of units in combat. We’ve made some adjustments internally and we’re initially liking how it plays out. This is something we’re planning on testing further in the beta. Woah, blizzard doing something right and listening to the community for once. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On February 15 2015 04:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: [...] Then play bio. Mech being viable does not mean that bio has to go. Diversity should not suffer because of your personal tastes. It wasn't my point actually. My point was that basing a design decision on the community wanting an easier game is bad. I know that most in this thread think only about the diversity of gameplay and that's well and good, I can't argue with that, but I can guaranty you most of the player base just wants mech to be easier to play, not more interesting to play. How many times did you read on TL: "Damn, Protoss is crushing me with Psistorm, can't manage to split well and kite, I wish mech was viable vs P"? I don't like wanting a playstyle to be viable as a cop out. I don't want Blizzard to give in to those demands. Make mech interesting if you got a good novel idea for it, don't make the current mech stronger with plain buffs or nerfs, like nerfing immortals or adding damage vs shields to siege tanks or some boring shit that can only lead to a rise of "patch mech'ers" of some sort. And for the record, I agree that mech is cool as fuck in BW, but it seems like quite an ordeal to port something equivalent in SC2, obviously. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On February 15 2015 03:30 TheDwf wrote: Fun is the most important for non-competitive play. It comes from interesting action rather than sheer mass of units; otherwise we wouldn't have so many complaints from low level players regarding max engagements being too brutal/fast/unforgiving. "noobs" want to play with the biggest and most "coolest" units. Things like Thors, Momaship, colossus, have been built with this in mind. I'm not saying i agree, but i think that is what Blizz(DB) thinks | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
Thing was though, i did this playing with friends, not on the fuckin ladder. I guess Blizz just did not understand that making a fun (AND ACCESSIBLE) experience for custom games was super important | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2647 Posts
On February 15 2015 07:51 ZenithM wrote: It wasn't my point actually. My point was that basing a design decision on the community wanting an easier game is bad. I know that most in this thread think only about the diversity of gameplay and that's well and good, I can't argue with that, but I can guaranty you most of the player base just wants mech to be easier to play, not more interesting to play. How many times did you read on TL: "Damn, Protoss is crushing me with Psistorm, can't manage to split well and kite, I wish mech was viable vs P"? I don't like wanting a playstyle to be viable as a cop out. I don't want Blizzard to give in to those demands. Make mech interesting if you got a good novel idea for it, don't make the current mech stronger with plain buffs or nerfs, like nerfing immortals or adding damage vs shields to siege tanks or some boring shit that can only lead to a rise of "patch mech'ers" of some sort. And for the record, I agree that mech is cool as fuck in BW, but it seems like quite an ordeal to port something equivalent in SC2, obviously. I think you are just putting your frustrations as arguments, mech is pretty hard to pull of in the high levels (just like any other style), Adding good harrasing/map control units to mech was always one of the biggest problems of mech (hence the cyclone, faster banshees, siege tank drops, etc). Saying that mech isn't and will never be a fun style is just using very narrow parts of it, if current mech can gives us games like ForGG vs Life and MMA vs Dark, I don't see how we can't make games to play more like that and less like Reality vs Soulkey. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 15 2015 02:03 TheDwf wrote: Then show me the working Stargate core duo from WoL. Zealots/Phoenixes/Voids? Zealots/Phoenixes/Carriers? Never worked at any point in SC2 history. Adding Oracles or Tempests changed nothing to that. Even stuff where Voids are core like Zealots/Voids/Storm or Stalkers/Voids/Colossi cannot be called "skytoss". I don't understand the first part of your argument. Zealot/Phoenix/Void didn't work in WoL means it isn't intended to work in HotS or in the future of SC2 or what do you want to say? Because that's true for Hellion/Tank/Thor from WoL or HotS too, which you claim is designed to work despite it has proven not to. And you say Zealot/Void/Storm isn't "skytoss" when the protoss has half of his army supply and even more of his army cost in stargate units, yet you claim that building 15vikings and 10medivacs and if it's advantagous you also add 10mines - none of which have the biological trait nor come from the barracks - is "bio-play". I understand that we can differentiate between skytoss and stargate-based styles if we want to go deep, but if that is your whole "skytoss wasn't supposed to be autonomous, yet mech was"-argument then all you do is fucking with phrases that aren't even hard defined to begin with. In particular I already wrote: Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions On February 15 2015 02:03 TheDwf wrote: I didn't mean it should be the only one, I simply think this is the one who produces the best games (so the design team should put particular effort into that kind of dynamic). Other game plans where you build your best ground army without much interaction or you rush straight to a lategame counter-fleet (e. g. Tempests or Carriers rushes) are more passive. It doesn't mean they should be "forbidden," but if they keep being the standard (such as Swarm host vs Raven play), people will keep complaining about camping or endless trench wars. Yeah that makes sense. | ||
|
custombuild
31 Posts
I really wish that the old units could be made accessible in customs. | ||
|
Blizzkrieg
95 Posts
Resource changes: We’re feeling more confident about the proposed resource changes from our last update. This change lowers half of the minerals to 50% of their Heart of the Swarm value while leaving the other half at their current HotS value of 1500. Internally, we’re seeing that this change not only encourages expansion across the map, but each base location remains a high point of contention. Assuming internal testing continues this way, it’s looking like we’ll go to beta with this change where we can see testing on a much larger scale with a wider variety of skill levels. Does this mean they're sticking with 6 workers at the start of the game, as opposed to the idea of using 12? | ||
|
GiveMeCake
148 Posts
"Experimenting with slowing down the pacing of combat in SC2 This is a topic we got a lot of community feedback on, so we did some heavy exploration in this area. The biggest thing we tried here was reducing the attack speed of each unit in the game by 40% and altering some damage values to compensate. Even though a change like this would seemingly have a huge implication on balance, we realized the gain wasn’t as big as we expected. Games feel different from before, but the main question has to be “Is this a positive change that makes games better?” We’re just not sure of this yet. For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat. Additionally, games feel more dragged out than before. But we’ve only had limited testing at this point, so we’ll continue to explore this area in more detail before making a final call. Reducing skill by allowing more players to micro better is exactly what most people want. Once more players are on an even playing field and battles are not so volatile Blizzard can add in units with more mirco potential further increasing the skill gap. Doing so will leave the game at a level everyone can enjoy. The pros will all get better as a result and we will start to see true gods with 80% win rates rising to power creating unbelievable story lines and growing the fan-base. | ||
|
Incanus
Canada695 Posts
Tempest vs swarm host nightmares... | ||
|
Xamo
Spain880 Posts
On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote: What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.. I'm absolutely with you, the game can be much more appealing to a larger fan base if you remove frustration from the gameplay. Blizzard has made improvements in this area, and I think the idea of Archon mode is one of them, but there is still room to do lots of things. I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general. +1 +1 +1 +1 specially to queuing of units w/o having resources or supply I would add: - AI-aided auto-creation of pilons, depots, overlords. Even EXPANSIONS. Not as efficient as when player-controlled, for example the depot is started so that later on you are supply-blocked for some seconds, but not heavily. An expansion is created if you float at 1000k minerals for a couple of minutes... etc - Selectable gamespeed for low-level leagues: Normal/fast/fastest for bronce, fast/fastest for silver. The game would select the middle point of the settings requested by the players. Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. The AI is quite dumb, so no high level or pro player - or even medium-level - would probably turn these things on. Tournament rules could even prevent it from happening. But it would be SO helpful to make the game funnier for low-level players... and those are the larger part of past 100k spectators of some tournaments. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
AI-aided auto-supply and auto-expand? Turn on auto-micro and auto-star-sense-proxy-scouting while you're at it. Actually maybe turn Starcraft into a RTS-gamer management game. You pick your RTS-gamers, upgrade their stats as they gain XP points, build the strongest roster and they auto-play for you. You can buy gems at the store to upgrade their stats faster and compete online for the right to pay for more gems. And don't forget to download the iOS and Android companion apps. iPad version coming up. Edit: Actually a kind of noob league where controls are super easy and tons of UI aids are enabled doesn't sound so bad. | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
On February 15 2015 20:34 Incanus wrote: Tempests and swarm hosts are why I don't play HotS. Kill the Tempest! Or at least, shrink it, make it faster, decrease cost, and/or make it weaker. Reavers worked because they could at least be microed with shuttles. You don't get that with an air unit. Tempest vs swarm host nightmares... ALL HotS units except viper and rededesign units are garbage. They need too downsize the importance of CC/Nexus/Hatch too. They are too powerful because of Scan/MULE/Chrono/Larvas, thats why players prefer to kill that building than workers, especially in Lategame. | ||
|
Haighstrom
United Kingdom199 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
On February 15 2015 22:19 Haighstrom wrote: I don't like how most of these changes move LOTV back closer to HOTS. It's in danger of being too conservative in the changes. And kills alot high potential maps. We can do make great maps for ZvT but Protoss kills it because of neccessary FF. Removes FF and give sentries a spell like +1 attack. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
On February 15 2015 21:18 Dingodile wrote: ALL HotS units except viper and rededesign units are garbage. Indeed. I would say the widow mine and the hellbat have some redeeming aspects, but oracle, tempest and swarm host were huge failures. Mothership core is special, since medivac boost and muta regen are interesting but P can't deal with them without overcharge unless big tweaks happen. Proving once again that adding units over units when unnecessary does more harm than good. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
| ||
| ||
