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.
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.
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.
Terran Changes
HERC
The HERC has been removed. The HERC redesign isn’t going as smoothly as we had hoped, and in our most recent build the HERC has been removed from the game. We’ve instead switched our focus from trying to make the HERC work to just going back to the drawing board to see what other new unit idea Terran can benefit from.
The latest design we’ve tested for this unit slot is a combat construction type of unit that travels with your army and constructs useful things mid-field to support your bio army. 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. We’ll continue to pursue potential new units that fit into the Terran army and we’d love to hear your feedback on this topic.
Thor
The Thor self-repair ability has been removed. The Thor self-repair ability isn’t really working. As we’ve pointed out before, we don’t like that fact that there’s no strategic decision outside of combat. If a Thor is damaged, players will always use the self-repair ability if they’re not in combat. Our current plans are to remove this ability for the start of beta and see how the Thor works without the added complexity of a different mode or an active ability.
Protoss Changes
New Protoss Unit
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Immortal
Barrier is no longer an upgrade Damage absorbed has been reduced to 100 down from 200. Immortal Barrier ability being an upgrade isn’t working out well for us, so we went back to no upgrade and reduced the damage absorbed. It was too buried in tech, and in order to use Immortals with max efficiency, you had to have the additional building. So we’re trying to just balance the unit without the ability being an upgrade.
Tempest
We’re considering changes that make the role more similar to the Heart of the Swarm Tempest. We’re thinking the current changes may be too big of a redesign in terms of unit role. We’re leaning towards going back to the Heart of the Swarm Tempest with a couple of changes. Since we still don’t want Tempests to hard counter units like Brood Lords, Carriers, or Battlecruisers we’re looking to remove the +massive damage component and then add Disintegration.
Zerg Changes
Infestor
The Infestor ability vs. mass air units has been moved to the Viper. We want to explore something else with the Infestor that is cool to have instead of Neural Parasite, while also giving a bit more of a core role to the Viper. We also thought that having this ability alongside Fungal Growth wasn’t right because of how well the two abilities synergize, so we wanted to explore moving this ability to a different unit. This way, depending on unit composition, we can see different scenarios where the abilities might be used separately or in combination.
Roach
Roach burrow move now works when Burrow is researched and no longer requires an upgrade. This ability allows for some cool micro that we’d like to see more of in Void, so we made it a bit more accessible for now. We’re also considering increasing the movement speed of Roaches while burrowed.
Poll: Opinion on the HERC removal?
Approve (671)
73%
Disapprove (150)
16%
Neutral/Don't Care (104)
11%
925 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the HERC removal?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the Thor change?
Approve (575)
74%
Neutral/Don't Care (126)
16%
Disapprove (79)
10%
780 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the Thor change?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the new Protoss unit?
Approve (393)
49%
Neutral/Don't Care (215)
27%
Disapprove (202)
25%
810 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the new Protoss unit?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the Immortal change?
Approve (545)
77%
Neutral/Don't Care (92)
13%
Disapprove (69)
10%
706 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the Immortal change?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the Tempest change?
Approve (249)
37%
Neutral/Don't Care (235)
35%
Disapprove (185)
28%
669 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the Tempest change?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the Infestor change?
Neutral/Don't Care (278)
47%
Approve (240)
40%
Disapprove (79)
13%
597 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the Infestor change?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Opinion on the Roach change?
Approve (511)
67%
Disapprove (226)
30%
Neutral/Don't Care (27)
4%
764 total votes
Your vote: Opinion on the Roach change?
(Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove (Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Wow they removed the most interesting unit that terran is getting? Hmm. Expected, but was expecting a replacement as well.
That new protoss unit sounds cool, but sound too much like a more advanced blink stalker. Reminds me of a unit like Zed from LoL with the teleport shadow thing, except the shadow can be controlled manually.
These are some weird changes. The roach one seems like the best one here.
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: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.
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
From my experience reducing the attack speed of units feels absolutely awful. I would rather look at damage values if they wanted to make battles last longer.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: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.
Honestly... why not just give a modified HERC to protoss, and give that stupid bomb robo unit to terran? Cyclone still seems like a bad unit, but we could give it to toss and then give terran reapers that are usable outside the early game...
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.
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.
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.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Agreed. Feels directionless, but if their direction is weak, perhaps it can be directed by a pushy loud mouthed community inspired by starbow and other design concepts
If they want fights where players have more control over time, they can simply decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows... Less units = less terrible, terrible damage
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Well it's not even alpha yet and I think it's awesome that they are actively changing things instead of being like "yeah well, guess that's good enough, let's just roll with it".
I would've liked the HERC if the Hellbat had its bio tag removed, but as it stands, they were right about them being too similar. However, I'm sad about it regardless. It was a cool micro ability, and it's really neat to see Terran with a melee unit other than SCVs.
The cooldown change they were testing seems a bit extreme. Really, they should do this change to both movement speeds and to cooldown, but by a lesser degree. Maybe 20%? All I know is that when me and my buddy play 1v1 in fast game speed rather than faster, our micro suddenly goes from extremely embarrassing to actually nearly pro level. Of course, our macro slips pretty bad, but that's just because we're not too great at the game.
the more i hear about lotv the less i like it. the worst designed unit in the game keeps its role and protoss gets another boring amove unit. Also it blows my mind they are considering taking the speed out of the game and turning the game into a boring settler/aoe type of game with slow boring combats. hopefully many people will keep playing hots so i don't have to quit sc2
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
The shade being able to explode could be interesting.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
People have done nothing but complain about their not being enough changes in HotS coming from WoL.
wow everything horrible for my taste. Removing upgrades that are no stat increases and actually need commitment to make them worth it. But hey Protoss gets an blink immortal from the gateway. Also the hope of Mech finally getting free heal by accident and becoming more viable died. Seems like LotV is pulling a HotS. Also lowering the pace of the battle ... reduce game speed ! XD
On February 13 2015 05:41 Charoisaur wrote: the more i hear about lotv the less i like it. the worst designed unit in the game keeps its role and protoss gets another boring amove unit. Also it blows my mind they are considering taking the speed out of the game and turning the game into a boring settler/aoe type of game with slow boring combats. hopefully many people will keep playing hots so i don't have to quit sc2
Wow Blizz is getting their shit together, almost everything they say sounds logical and good to me.
Herc: Yes, as others have said its role seems to overlap with many other units making it not really needed, that or OP as it was at start.
Thor: Yes, no point adding more mindless clicking we want clicking were a decision is needed before clicking, good decision by Blizz.
New P unit: I don't like the sound of it, protoss already has insane ability to move around the battlefield, blink, charge fastest unit phoenix and on top of that their new warp prism. Unless its a very expensive heavy unit that can be used to ambush I think it sounds too similar to stalker blink. Stalkers that can't shoot up?
Immortal: Agree, Immortals are rarely used as main units unless its an allin, making it an upgrade would proabably make them not used.
Tempest: Agree, I don't know if its enough change to just take away the massive buff though, Tempests are OP in the late game atm I would like that changed for real.
Infestor: Agree, would be fun with another spell on infestor and having possible combo with vipers is interesting.
Roach: Agree, more micro, more fun games and more entertaining games.
Basically only the new P unit that I'm a bit unsure about.
Please don't make combats slower. The worst combats in the game are those that involve lots of low-dps/high HP units, such as Protoss, Roaches or Broodlord type of battles. Swarm Hosts are hated exactly because they slow the pace of the battles down so much, making for minute long struggles to kill a unit or two.
The problem isn't dps/health relations, those are pretty good in general. The problem is too much mobility, which is often described by "fast paced play". The fact that you only have like 10vision range from a lot of angles around your base and then suddenly a gigantic army in the form of medivacs or mutalisks or a single warp prism can appear in your base is the problem. Harass play is fun, but it also should be limited to that. Mass doomdrops in all Terran matchups severely cripple the abilities to actually move out against a bio-centric Terran. Mutalisks and Zerglings force Protoss into stale defensive positions and severely cripple mapdesign to cater to Protoss ability to do that. Instead of nerfing the damage output of all those units, it would be nice to give players more reaction time against specific very aggressively used units, allowing for smaller repercussions when making rather small positioning mistakes.
Otherwise the changes seem to go into the right direction. Not sure about the new Protoss unit, but that is very hard to tell until one sees it in action.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
People have done nothing but complain about their not being enough changes in HotS coming from WoL.
If anything I've kept complaining about how HotS kept creating problems WoL did not have. Medivac boost + muta regen forced mothership core + spore bio damage buff, tempests killed brood lords that were already fine after infestor nerf and SH... do I need to elaborate on that one ? WoL + fungal nerfs + phoenix range increase + ultra buffs + maybe viper would have been a great game.
On February 13 2015 05:43 Clonester wrote: So SCV is back again Terrans best melee unit.
As it should be
Only until the Super Mega Battle SCV comes out!
The latest design we’ve tested for this unit slot is a combat construction type of unit that travels with your army and constructs useful things mid-field to support your bio army. 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. We’ll continue to pursue potential new units that fit into the Terran army and we’d love to hear your feedback on this topic.
the closer Blizzard gets the resource gathering style to Red Alert 3's style the better. so i like what they are doing with their changes so far.
Blizzard is doing a great job with LotV. They always do a great job on their expansion packs. Blizzard has an incredible "feedback loop" for such a big company.
On February 13 2015 05:41 Charoisaur wrote: the more i hear about lotv the less i like it. the worst designed unit in the game keeps its role and protoss gets another boring amove unit. Also it blows my mind they are considering taking the speed out of the game and turning the game into a boring settler/aoe type of game with slow boring combats. hopefully many people will keep playing hots so i don't have to quit sc2
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
Their goal is making the game
A) Have more opportunities for skilled players to pull ahead through micro, thats why they are adding all these abilities to make fights not just units hitting eachother but actually lots of ability using in there too.
B) More entertaining to watch, they talk quite a lot about this about the entertainment when watching games. It seems to be what they are hoping will give sc2 some more wind under its wings and make it more popular.
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
The latest design we’ve tested for this unit slot is a combat construction type of unit that travels with your army and constructs useful things mid-field to support your bio army. 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. We’ll continue to pursue potential new units that fit into the Terran army and we’d love to hear your feedback on this topic.
Mining like 4.3 SCVs, it is only logical the MULE receives 4.3 times the dps of a standard SCV, triggering the unstoppable rax 12 into SCV pull + MULE into the enemy base rush!
Oh God, this makes me remember this 12 workers at start thing is still there. /:
It's really difficult to judge anything without seeing play. As long as they are focused on the right things, like economy, more micro opportunities, more fun fights and more strategies viable like mech, then it's fine.
On February 13 2015 05:45 Big J wrote: Please don't make combats slower. The worst combats in the game are those that involve lots of low-dps/high HP units, such as Protoss, Roaches or Broodlord type of battles. Swarm Hosts are hated exactly because they slow the pace of the battles down so much, making for minute long struggles to kill a unit or two.
The problem isn't dps/health relations, those are pretty good in general. The problem is too much mobility, which is often described by "fast paced play". The fact that you only have like 10vision range from a lot of angles around your base and then suddenly a gigantic army in the form of medivacs or mutalisks or a single warp prism can appear in your base is the problem. Harass play is fun, but it also should be limited to that. Mass doomdrops in all Terran matchups severely cripple the abilities to actually move out against a bio-centric Terran. Mutalisks and Zerglings force Protoss into stale defensive positions and severely cripple mapdesign to cater to Protoss ability to do that. Instead of nerfing the damage output of all those units, it would be nice to give players more reaction time against specific very aggressively used units, allowing for smaller repercussions when making rather small positioning mistakes.
Otherwise the changes seem to go into the right direction. Not sure about the new Protoss unit, but that is very hard to tell until one sees it in action.
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.
To be honest I'd like to see a 5% decrease in game speed and an additional 5% decrease in attack speeds and a very slight tweak of the pathfinding to make units more clumsy/weighty. It'll be a fair amount of work to implement and it won't fix anything, making it an ill-advised endeavor for Blizzard to undertake, but I suspect they would make for better base values to design the game around.
On February 13 2015 05:45 Big J wrote: Please don't make combats slower. The worst combats in the game are those that involve lots of low-dps/high HP units, such as Protoss, Roaches or Broodlord type of battles. Swarm Hosts are hated exactly because they slow the pace of the battles down so much, making for minute long struggles to kill a unit or two.
The problem isn't dps/health relations, those are pretty good in general. The problem is too much mobility, which is often described by "fast paced play". The fact that you only have like 10vision range from a lot of angles around your base and then suddenly a gigantic army in the form of medivacs or mutalisks or a single warp prism can appear in your base is the problem. Harass play is fun, but it also should be limited to that. Mass doomdrops in all Terran matchups severely cripple the abilities to actually move out against a bio-centric Terran. Mutalisks and Zerglings force Protoss into stale defensive positions and severely cripple mapdesign to cater to Protoss ability to do that. Instead of nerfing the damage output of all those units, it would be nice to give players more reaction time against specific very aggressively used units, allowing for smaller repercussions when making rather small positioning mistakes.
Otherwise the changes seem to go into the right direction. Not sure about the new Protoss unit, but that is very hard to tell until one sees it in action.
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.
Couldn't agree more. With medivac and muta back to their WoL design, we could at last talk about removing mothership core and that would open a whole new world.
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
I think Blizzard should really focus on this part, because at the moment every game is about staying safe until being able to tech to AoE damage.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
People have done nothing but complain about their not being enough changes in HotS coming from WoL.
If anything I've kept complaining about how HotS kept creating problems WoL did not have. Medivac boost + muta regen forced mothership core + spore bio damage buff, tempests killed brood lords that were already fine after infestor nerf and SH... do I need to elaborate on that one ? WoL + fungal nerfs + phoenix range increase + ultra buffs + maybe viper would have been a great game.
I like both the medivac boost and muta regen, actually these makes the games both more fun to play and more fun to watch. Terran is basically awesome to watch now if you see players using them to their full extent. Muta regen is actually needed to even have a chance against medivac boost, thor prioritizing air and phoenix range upgrade. I think mutas were better in WoL because of how much better counters the other races have to it now.
Spore damge boost to bio is super important, I play muta in ZvZ everyday and I like this change, says quite a bit.
MSC and tempest is a problem I agree, they are working on trying and fixing that for lotv.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
On February 13 2015 05:43 Clonester wrote: So SCV is back again Terrans best melee unit.
As it should be
Only until the Super Mega Battle SCV comes out!
The latest design we’ve tested for this unit slot is a combat construction type of unit that travels with your army and constructs useful things mid-field to support your bio army. 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. We’ll continue to pursue potential new units that fit into the Terran army and we’d love to hear your feedback on this topic.
Mining like 4.3 SCVs, it is only logical the MULE receives 4.3 times the dps of a standard SCV, triggering the unstoppable rax 12 into SCV pull + MULE into the enemy base rush!
Oh God, this makes me remember this 12 workers at start thing is still there. /:
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: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.
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.
Don´t really like that, i love StarCraft for its speed. Thats just my personal feeling.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
On February 13 2015 05:57 Shuffleblade wrote: MSC and tempest is a problem I agree, they are working on trying and fixing that for lotv.
They aren't. Read what they wrote about tempest. And they simply can't remove overcharge if they're not willing to seriously buff stalkers -which would create a new set of problems since blink stalkers are already OK especially in PvZ- so MSC will stay here as long as your cherished medivac boost and muta regen are around.
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: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.
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
I think Blizzard should really focus on this part, because at the moment every game is about staying safe until being able to tech to AoE damage.
If you play protoss I agree, as Z or T this doesn't really stay true though. They really should try and find a way to make protoss gateway units less useless. Protoss has to tech to aoe units because their gateway units suck compared to the others races units, the problem is that if they were equally strong warp-tech would be too powerful. Its a hard nut to crack, either you keep them weaker and then P still has to tech or you remove warp-tech which is basically a stable for protoss now.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Same with the reaver honestly, hopefully they will put up a lurker just before beta.
So Tier 1 burrowed Roaches? RIP Gateway Expansion.
I hope they come up with an interesting unit for Terran, one with a role that's actually needed. I kinda liked the HERC concept, but I can see their reasoning. Maybe they should play some more Wings of Liberty and see if they had a cool idea somewhere in there.
Thor without any ability? Meh, who cares.
Immortal change is spot on, making that ability an upgrade was a silly idea after removing hardened shields which didn't have to be researched. The Tempest re-redesign makes me feel weird, I'm not sure I buy the "It's too different from the original idea." thing.
The new unit sounds like a Stalker with hallucination, and worse than both Stalker and Sentry. I'm all for new Gateway units, but I really hope they can make it... more interesting.
wow really happy with these changes so impressed with blizz,, would love to hear more about "Scan range experimentation" if its increasing microabilty (micro mechanics dmg point, moving shot... etc) of units i would be soooooooooo happy!!
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.
I don't get that one. What does the scan range have to do with responsiveness in units in combat ? I must be really dumb, can someone explain it another way ?
On February 13 2015 05:57 Shuffleblade wrote: MSC and tempest is a problem I agree, they are working on trying and fixing that for lotv.
They aren't. Read what they wrote about tempest. And they simply can't remove overcharge if they're not willing to seriously buff stalkers -which would create a new set of problems since blink stalkers are already OK especially in PvZ- so MSC will stay here as long as your cherished medivac boost and muta regen are around.
Maybe you are right about the msc, but the tempest they have been talking about changing quite a lot just because it brings such big problems. If this doesn't fix it then they will probably go back to the drawing table, they are working on the tempest.
Hmm I really dislike the msc and really hoped they would do something about that but maybe not =/
Overall I'm glad that Blizzard has been listening to the community and removed the HERC which didn't really work in the Terran bio ball well. That said, what is up with the Protoss changes?
Why is there a need to change the immortal in the first place? It's only ever used right now for early to mid-game pushes and it's a supply drain for late game.
Also with Tempests, isn't the fact it counters swarmhosts, broodlords, ultras, thors etc the whole point of it? If the damages it deals to those units get reduced, then what's the point of building it? I get it's a shorter build time, but if it's going to be so weak then what's the point of building it? Plus, toss still has no real air AOE other than storms and we've all seen how that plays out against mass mutas late game.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
I think if they did a slight AS change it woudln't be so painful ..... 40% is drastic and honestly with that kind of change banelings reign supreme.....I'd say 25% reduction MAX would do wonders....
I don't get at all what they're trying to do with the scan, but above all they should remove the visible radius so attackers don't get to shift move their invisible units just outside of the scan so easily
On February 13 2015 06:05 TheDwf wrote: I don't get at all what they're trying to do with the scan, but above all they should remove the visible radius so attackers don't get to shift move their invisible units just outside of the scan so easily
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.
I don't get that one. What does the scan range have to do with responsiveness in units in combat ? I must be really dumb, can someone explain it another way ?
It's the unit scan range, not the range of the scan from orbital commands. It determines from how far away units recognise enemy units.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Dragoons would achieve what exactly?
They would allow the reorganization of the whole Protoss race without the major obstacles that are Sentries, the MSC, Immortals, Colossi and Warpgate in their current form
On February 13 2015 06:05 TheDwf wrote: I don't get at all what they're trying to do with the scan, but above all they should remove the visible radius so attackers don't get to shift move their invisible units just outside of the scan so easily
They are talking about the "scan radius" each unit has, which is set to 5currently by default. It means that units with more than 5range sometimes will step too close to a target before shooting. It is the reason why 6range stalkers on a-move ("scan your enviroment for targets while moving") sometimes bug out and step into detected 5range mines.
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
On February 13 2015 06:05 TheDwf wrote: I don't get at all what they're trying to do with the scan, but above all they should remove the visible radius so attackers don't get to shift move their invisible units just outside of the scan so easily
They are talking about the "scan radius" each unit has, which is set to 5currently by default. It means that units with more than 5range sometimes will step too close to a target before shooting. It is the reason why 6range stalkers on a-move ("scan your enviroment for targets while moving") sometimes bug out and step into detected 5range mines.
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.
I don't get that one. What does the scan range have to do with responsiveness in units in combat ? I must be really dumb, can someone explain it another way ?
It's the unit scan range, not the range of the scan from orbital commands. It determines from how far away units recognise enemy units.
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.
I don't get that one. What does the scan range have to do with responsiveness in units in combat ? I must be really dumb, can someone explain it another way ?
It's the unit scan range, not the range of the scan from orbital commands. It determines from how far away units recognise enemy units.
I feel like the same stuff always happens with blizzard.... they come up with strange ideas for terran they exna them all and give zerg and protoss upgrades and changes that benefit them then 1 year of terran getting owned in every tournament then they make changes to the units then terran starts winning because they went to far with the changes then they revert them then we see 15 protoss 1 zerg in code S then they meet in the middle ground with the terran units and everything levels out to relatively good balance
I don't even understand why they're trying to give Terran new units when aberrations like the current Thor still exist. Reworking/improving existing units such as the Hellion/Hellbat duo, Mines, Thors, Vikings and to a smaller extent Banshees would already achieve so much more.
Edit - forgot the Raven, of course; and Reapers/Ghosts could do with some overhaul too.
This is the first time that I am not satisfied with any of these changes... Literally all of them sound mediocre at best to me.
Protoss - New Protoss unit sounds way too much like Stalker with blink, they are combining new and old Tempest which sounds even more awful than the current one(or the old one for that matter), they have no clue what they want to do with Immortal at all.
Zerg - Burrow movement Roaches will probably be too strong and they will probably merge it with Roach movement speed upgrade in the near future. I don't even know what's new Infestor's ability(unless it is the same ability that WAS on Viper in the first place judging by their last report).
Terran - I am ok with Thor losing their ability, it wasn't really cool or game changing. I am sad about HERC removal, it was really cool unit compared to Cyclone, and I liked what you could've done with that unit as well, it seemed to have great potential.
40% attack speed reduction is horrible lol, they could only reduce the whole game speed by 15-30%, not just attack speed, that doesn't make any sense. You have something like Banelings that don't care about attack speed, rolling into their enemies and wrecking havoc because units can't shoot fast enough to kill them before they engage. Or you have Lurkers that can be avoided with good micro, but now you don't even need to micro that godly when your stimmed Marines and Marauders still have the same speed but Lurkers attack slower.
Hopefully next update will be A LOT better than this one, this is pile of crap.
On February 13 2015 06:10 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: The new protoss unit sounds really cool.
It sounds really lame IMO. A Stalker with delayed Blink, but a built-in Hallucination, but it can't shoot air? This better bring something interesting to the table.
I don't even understand why they're trying to give Terran new units when aberrations like the current Thor still exist. Reworking/improving existing units such as the Hellion/Hellbat duo, Mines, Thors, Vikings and to a smaller extent Banshees would already achieve so much more.
Banshees are going to wind up being a slower attacking oracle with the Move speed upgrade and they will probably reduce the range they shoot
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Dragoons would achieve what exactly?
They would allow the reorganization of the whole Protoss race without the major obstacles that are Sentries, the MSC, Immortals, Colossi and Warpgate in their current form
How? What is the difference between the stalker and a dragoon? Sure, the stats, but as concept? Why not make the stalker "better"? If you can find reasons why making the stalker better (ok maybe if you remove blink) you also state at the same time why dragoons wouldn't work. I maybe can see dragoons/better stalkers being usefull against zerg, but the whole warpgate thing doesn't really allow for it tbh. Other than that against terran they would be just as useless as stalkers are now as soon as terran gets stim and medivacs imo. As long as the pathing works as it does now you will always need strong aoe against terran
Please let the community test things like attack speed reduction or unit spacing in the Alpha or Beta. Just doing internal tests and giving the result as an accomplished fact is really, really annoying for matters the community cares so much about.
Please let the community test things like attack speed reduction or unit spacing in the Alpha or Beta. Just doing internal tests and giving the result as an accomplished fact is really, really annoying for matters the community cares so much about.
I don't think it's a good idea to change the attack speeds, unless they're willing to make a lot of other changes to the game as well.
Just a few examples of how this affects unit balance: - improves banelings because they only fire once - weakens brood lords because you have a larger window of time to get sufficiently close to kill - improves melee units because damage is decreased and they have more time to close the distance (generalizes to lower range units) - improves spell casters by default because all other units are weaker - makes blink stalkers a lot more powerful since blinking becomes easier, same for roach burrow micro - weakens marauders because you can more easily escape concussive shell - weakens reapers since they depend on reaction time of pulling back workers being too slow
Also, it makes positioning at the start of the battle less important, which is bad because that's largely what SC2 micro interactions are based on.
On February 13 2015 06:17 Grumbels wrote: I don't think it's a good idea to change the attack speeds, unless they're willing to make a lot of other changes to the game as well.
Just a few examples of how this affects unit balance: - improves banelings because they only fire once - weakens brood lords because you have a larger window of time to get sufficiently close to kill - improves melee units because damage is decreased and they have more time to close the distance (generalizes to lower range units) - improves spell casters by default because all other units are weaker - makes blink stalkers a lot more powerful since blinking becomes easier, same for roach burrow micro - weakens marauders because you can more easily escape concussive shell - weakens reapers since they depend on reaction time of pulling back workers being too slow
Also, it makes positioning at the start of the battle less important, which is bad because that's largely what SC2 micro interactions are based on.
Exactly what I've wrote on the previous page, it doesn't make any sense to just reduce attack speed without reducing movement speed as well, or whole game speed for that matter.
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
I think Blizzard should really focus on this part, because at the moment every game is about staying safe until being able to tech to AoE damage.
If you play protoss I agree, as Z or T this doesn't really stay true though. They really should try and find a way to make protoss gateway units less useless. Protoss has to tech to aoe units because their gateway units suck compared to the others races units, the problem is that if they were equally strong warp-tech would be too powerful. Its a hard nut to crack, either you keep them weaker and then P still has to tech or you remove warp-tech which is basically a stable for protoss now.
I would really like if people would stop saying gateway units are useless
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Dragoons would achieve what exactly?
They would allow the reorganization of the whole Protoss race without the major obstacles that are Sentries, the MSC, Immortals, Colossi and Warpgate in their current form
How? What is the difference between the stalker and a dragoon?
Blink
Other than that against terran they would be just as useless as stalkers are now as soon as terran gets stim and medivacs imo. As long as the pathing works as it does now you will always need strong aoe against terran
Stalkers are far from being useless even when Terran has stim/Medivacs; just because they lack raw dps and can't beat bio when massed alone doesn't make them completely inefficient. Protoss would need less AoE if their main ranged unit had +20 hit points and +6 (+2) vs Armored. The fact they would still need AoE isn't a problem per se, as long as it doesn't lead to passive colo accumulation like now
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Dragoons would achieve what exactly?
They would allow the reorganization of the whole Protoss race without the major obstacles that are Sentries, the MSC, Immortals, Colossi and Warpgate in their current form
How? What is the difference between the stalker and a dragoon? Sure, the stats, but as concept? Why not make the stalker "better"? If you can find reasons why making the stalker better (ok maybe if you remove blink) you also state at the same time why dragoons wouldn't work. I maybe can see dragoons/better stalkers being usefull against zerg, but the whole warpgate thing doesn't really allow for it tbh. Other than that against terran they would be just as useless as stalkers are now as soon as terran gets stim and medivacs imo. As long as the pathing works as it does now you will always need strong aoe against terran
You could just have Dragoons be really beefy and come from Gateways instead of Warpgates
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
I think Blizzard should really focus on this part, because at the moment every game is about staying safe until being able to tech to AoE damage.
If you play protoss I agree, as Z or T this doesn't really stay true though. They really should try and find a way to make protoss gateway units less useless. Protoss has to tech to aoe units because their gateway units suck compared to the others races units, the problem is that if they were equally strong warp-tech would be too powerful. Its a hard nut to crack, either you keep them weaker and then P still has to tech or you remove warp-tech which is basically a stable for protoss now.
I would really like if people would stop saying gateway units are useless
OK after some banter my first impressions on each announcement :
Resource changes
I've played around with the mod enough to say I'm quite OK with that change. Even the 12 workers thing, that I was initially quite concerned about, seemed to not snowball too much.
Experimenting with slowing down the pacing of combat in SC2
I think the skill component reduction is really huge here. SC2 is a fast paced game, and we admire good players because of how much they're able to perform with accuracy in a very short time. I don't wish the game would go in that direction.
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.
If I understood what Musicus sent on this thread well, this is great. I don't even get why they didn't change that long ago.
HERC The HERC has been removed.
Good. As for "we want feedback on what could fill that unit slot" : what about fucking NOTHING ? Who said T needed another bio unit ? The advertisers who desperately want to sell that game ?
Thor The Thor self-repair ability has been removed.
Good, and good reasoning behind the change.
New Protoss Unit
It sounds too much like something which could overlap heavily with the blink stalker to make me enthusiast. Maybe they're preparing a stalker redesign though, making this new unit legit. But if the blink stalker is going to remain as it is, I'm very sceptical and even reluctant. That gimmicky kind of mobility (same thing with the range prism) doesn't sound good to me.
Immortal
OK.
Tempest
Tempest is bad, admit it and remove them. You already made a first step by making long overdue changes on the carriers (build time, interceptors launch) so now do what you should have done when you first thought of that shame of an unit : scrap it, vomit on it, trample on it, burn it, bury it, forget it.
Infestor
The Infestor ability vs. mass air units has been moved to the Viper.
OK, though I'm definitely worried about their mass abilities syndrome.
Roach
Roach burrow move now works when Burrow is researched and no longer requires an upgrade. This ability allows for some cool micro that we’d like to see more of in Void, so we made it a bit more accessible for now. We’re also considering increasing the movement speed of Roaches while burrowed.
Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
Sigh another new terran unit in beta that has been removed. I really hope they actually replace it with something decent. Removing the thor ability and removing the Herc just kinda makes me feel like terran has nothing brand new and invented for lotv. Not saying i dont agree with the changes but i just wish that they replaced the removals of these 2 changes instead of just removing them and just leaving it.
Cant judge the new protoss unit as it has no footage yet. Im not really bothered for the other changes to zerg and protoss as they seem pretty minor.
unit attack speed decrease by 40%? dont know if blizzard are actually trolling or being serious about even considering this but it would be a disaster if it ever went through. Skill gap would change dramatically and so would the balance of certain units.
C) Making the games diverse where the meta is not stale but rather have quite a few viable strategies, adding units and really thinking about how they synergise helps accomplish this.
I think Blizzard should really focus on this part, because at the moment every game is about staying safe until being able to tech to AoE damage.
If you play protoss I agree, as Z or T this doesn't really stay true though. They really should try and find a way to make protoss gateway units less useless. Protoss has to tech to aoe units because their gateway units suck compared to the others races units, the problem is that if they were equally strong warp-tech would be too powerful. Its a hard nut to crack, either you keep them weaker and then P still has to tech or you remove warp-tech which is basically a stable for protoss now.
I would really like if people would stop saying gateway units are useless
Can't fight against 5 years old myths /:
I thought everybody knows that fully upgraded Zealots are unstoppable juggernauts of destruction, literal gods of war.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
Well the new gateway core unit should take care of allowing you to survive early on, we don't know enough about it yet though.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
If they destroy it medivac speed needs to go though.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
I'd assume that's the point of that new unit, but dunno
Damn, they do sound like they know what they're doing. I'm excited to see what's next. I just hope that by release time Terran won't have lost every single new unit ;D
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
I'd assume that's the point of that new unit, but dunno
Did it really sound like it to you ? Shades will definitely help me kill ravagers and banes.
I really like them getting rid of the herc, the overlap with hellbat made it very boring imo, the on the move construction unit they are hinting at is very interesting to me on the other hand big thumbs up on all the changes!
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
If they destroy it medivac speed needs to go though.
I'm almost sure they won't touch it. They're so proud of their philosophy of the attacker's advantage...
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
I'd assume that's the point of that new unit, but dunno
Did it really sound like it to you ? Shades will definitely help me kill ravagers and banes.
well, no, we have no idea if it helps or not, but my assumption is that they want to "fix" lack of mass FF with a new unit
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
If they destroy it medivac speed needs to go though.
I'm almost sure they won't touch it. They're so proud of their philosophy of the attacker's advantage...
Which is why FF/PO is set in stone forever for P to be viable, unless the new unit is imbalanced as fuck...
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
If they destroy it medivac speed needs to go though.
I'm almost sure they won't touch it. They're so proud of their philosophy of the attacker's advantage...
Which is why FF/PO is set in stone forever for P to be viable, unless the new unit is imbalanced as fuck...
Should probably prepare for 1 gate double robo expand if the T1 burrowed Roach/Ravager push becomes a thing.
Edit: Or open Stargate all the time, I guess. With the original removal of PO's anti-air function, that seems like what they wanted anyway.
Still early to tell what these changes will bring, but I like that they are really trying new stuff. Seeing this, I wouldn't mind waiting until 2016 for LotV.
On February 13 2015 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote: Errrrr... OK ? I don't get how P is ever gonna survive mass roaches attacks since you basically have no FFs anymore. They can burrow walk under FFs AND morph into ravagers that break FFs. I don't understand how you can deal with roach ravagers pushes.
You won't survive the Ravager/Bane bust phase anyway
I know you're joking but I'm supposed to be happy with it ? I see no way for P to expand safely, seriously. Ravagers come way too early and we rely so much on FFs to deal with baneling busts... Dunno.
From the bright side, this kind of problem will force them to look into the issue of early game Protoss, hopefully to recognize that the model of the FF/PO defence has to be destroyed
If they destroy it medivac speed needs to go though.
I'm almost sure they won't touch it. They're so proud of their philosophy of the attacker's advantage...
Which is why FF/PO is set in stone forever for P to be viable, unless the new unit is imbalanced as fuck...
They're diplomatically removing FF from LotV PvZ so maybe there's hope. Perhaps I should start writing Welcome to Attackcraft II lol
The reduction of attack speeds is a bad idea, because a battle is fast and when we take fast good decisions , we show the the experience in battles. ^_^
On February 13 2015 06:45 Hier wrote: The protoss unit I don't really understand; what's the point?
- They want to add a core gate unit because everyone begged them to do so; - They don't want it to be the Dragoon out of pride; - It has to get some active ability because MICRO!! - They don't know exactly what they want to do with this unit.
The protoss unit I don't really understand; what's the point? A stalker with a slower blink that cannot shoot air?
I see it as an infiltration, suddenly I'm in your base unit. I think also you can send the shade homeward and attack and then duration ends and units are rescued. Probably does overlap too much with the Blink Stalker though.
On February 13 2015 06:45 Hier wrote: The protoss unit I don't really understand; what's the point?
- They want to add a core gate unit because everyone begged them to do so; - They don't want it to be the Dragoon out of pride; - It has to be get some active ability because MICRO!! - They don't know exactly what they want to do with this unit.
On February 13 2015 06:45 Hier wrote: The protoss unit I don't really understand; what's the point?
- They want to add a core gate unit because everyone begged them to do so; - They don't want it to be the Dragoon out of pride; - It has to be get some active ability because MICRO!! - They don't know exactly what they want to do with this unit.
As multitple people said here, it just feels like they have no clear vision of what to do with the game. They have a list of feedback and struggle answering it in an unified set of changes. Everything they try just feel random so far.
All aproved only roach move too op harras that this can do is just insane especially in early game . Burrow roach harass into ravager timing is like lights out for both other races .
On February 13 2015 06:51 Noocta wrote: As multitple people said here, it just feels like they have no clear vision of what to do with the game. They have a list of feedback and struggle answering it in an unified set of changes. Everything they try just feel random so far.
Which would actually be OK if the beta was on. I definitely hope they try anything they can think of during the beta, since it's the last chance we get to implement really cool things. But all those "let's add this even if it doesn't fulfill any role, hmmm doesn't quite work, oh let's add it back with that so cool micro ability, errrr no let's remove it" make them look really clueless.
As multitple people said here, it just feels like they have no clear vision of what to do with the game. They have a list of feedback and struggle answering it in an unified set of changes. Everything they try just feel random so far.
I think that they want to make it broodwar Esque at the request of everyone but don't want to make it that way at their own expense. So they want units that insta kill and go 3k MPH that you have to press a million buttons to use but its simple to learn how to use.... LOLOLOL
So yea its all random attempts to make things better in the way that they like hahaha
The protoss unit I don't really understand; what's the point? A stalker with a slower blink that cannot shoot air?
I see it as an infiltration, suddenly I'm in your base unit. I think also you can send the shade homeward and attack and then duration ends and units are rescued. Probably does overlap too much with the Blink Stalker though.
Another thing to note is that early game units with special movement abilities are difficult to balance, so they should avoid going down that route once again (as they did with Reapers and Blink Stalkers).
Otherwise interesting to see that they are trying so much different things, kudos and keep up the testing! Quite suprised they tested attack speed change and are actually looking into the scan range thing.
Burrowed Roaches are already pretty fast arent they? And they want to increase that again? Dont really like the fast burrow movement... Also, gotta be interesting to see if the Viper gets an AA spell only or if its basicly fungal. Infestor really needs another good spell then to not make it 100% useless
On February 13 2015 06:13 Ramiz1989 wrote: I don't even know what's new Infestor's ability(unless it is the same ability that WAS on Viper in the first place judging by their last report).
It looks as though during internal testing, they moved that ability to the Infestor, and then back to the Viper. If they didn't tell us that, we didn't know it happened and this update doesn't make sense. I'm confused by it. That's my best guess as to what happened.
The Infestor ability vs. mass air units has been moved to the Viper.
Are they referring to that spell, Aggressive Mutation, or how it is called?
no, they removed it already
They should really release the whole current state of the game each time they try changes, because all of this is confusing
Was thinking the same thing. They removed, put back and removed again so many thing I don't really know what is in this version of the game and what isn't anymore.
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
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
From my experience reducing the attack speed of units feels absolutely awful. I would rather look at damage values if they wanted to make battles last longer.
This seems like a band aid change to what really needs to happen: spread the units out more.
Edit: also, i voted to like the roach burrow movement change solely because I'm a zerg player, not because i think it would be good for game balance :D
On February 13 2015 06:51 Noocta wrote: As multitple people said here, it just feels like they have no clear vision of what to do with the game. They have a list of feedback and struggle answering it in an unified set of changes. Everything they try just feel random so far.
Random approach to design can work, just try out hundreds of ideas and probably half a dozen will be valid. This method is used to improve top chess programs.
The biggest difficulty is that you need to be able to recognize that a (random) change is good or bad for gameplay. I'm not convinced that Blizzard has the correct mindset for that (i.e. doesn't delegate this decision to their marketing department...).
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Probably speaking in general about Lurkers, Ravagers and no more SHs/Ravens in their current form
I really just feel like they just cant make a choice what they want to do here. It's like they WANT a totally new game out of SC, take some baby steps in that direction, and then start just chopping everything that doesnt make the game the same way it was before.
HERC- Just.. Just come on, again? Okay fine. Put the grapple on Hellbats or something? Make it an upgrade. Just stop talking about adding skill and micro to the game and then removing it from Terran every chance you get. Micro seems to mean to Bliz "everyone else does cool stuff, YOU react to it" when it comes to Terran.
Thor- Yeah kind of a dumb ability on its own. I really dont see the Thor ever changing without a major redesign we all know we wont get. At this point I'd say give us the Odin hero unit they originally wanted to give us in HOTS.
Phantom Dragoon- Would love it if Toss just got a unit with no gimmick. What is with them this go round and giving Protoss these "invincible" abilities this time around? Cloaked stasis mine, a unit that goes invincible and explodes you cant target, and now this.
Immortal- Absolutely a fine idea to me. Stupid to make it an upgrade, I think changing how it worked in the first place made perfect since. Why make the shield tank 200 dmg in the first place? Would have made perfect since for it to just be normal hardened shields that you have to activate. Having a general Halo style "over shield" for dps absorption seems like way too much to me.
Tempest- If we are going to be talking about too much overlap how about the Tempest. I thought the Voidray did this things job alright? Siege lines seem pretty easily broken by everything else toss, so I always felt this one was overkill, considering its damage, range, and health. Depending on the changes they want here, Id say a health nerf or supply nerf is needed along with the ground only damage. I dont understand why toss needs Disintegration.
Infestor and Roach- NP rarely gets used, so Id honestly like to see there be some kind of change or ability replacement here. I think it makes way more sense to keep the infestor ability vs mass air since the infestor is the damage dealing spellcaster and the Viper is more about positioning than damage. A Viper with NP would make sense, but I dont know how that would work out in game.
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Probably speaking in general about Lurkers, Ravagers and no more SHs/Ravens in their current form
Well, as I said already I agree that up until now most of the changes were quite positive in my opinion. However, I can't find a single change that is great in this report.
The Infestor ability vs. mass air units has been moved to the Viper.
Are they referring to that spell, Aggressive Mutation, or how it is called?
no, they removed it already
They should really release the whole current state of the game each time they try changes, because all of this is confusing
Was thinking the same thing. They removed, put back and removed again so many thing I don't really know what is in this version of the game and what isn't anymore.
Well it's their internal version pre-alpha, they need to be able to do quick changes without having to write an entire community update. I think it's fine, they update us on the general direction. I want them spending more time testing and less time documenting.
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
The Infestor ability vs. mass air units has been moved to the Viper.
Are they referring to that spell, Aggressive Mutation, or how it is called?
no, they removed it already
They should really release the whole current state of the game each time they try changes, because all of this is confusing
Was thinking the same thing. They removed, put back and removed again so many thing I don't really know what is in this version of the game and what isn't anymore.
Well it's their internal version pre-alpha, they need to be able to do quick changes without having to write an entire community update. I think it's fine, they update us on the general direction. I want them spending more time testing and less time documenting.
It would take them one minute to update a basic changelog that they can publish anywhere...
Why do everything needs to have a stupid gimmick to it?
You want a new gateway unit?
Keep whatever unit you have, take away the stupid ability, give it more life/attack, make it so it can only be created from gateways and not from warpgates.
Boom, strong core gateway unit that doesn't depends on robo units and at the same time it doesn't make gateway rushes super strong.
AKA the starbow dragoon
On February 13 2015 07:23 Big-t wrote: Herc removed? I always felt like the cyclone was so much more OP
They removed the HERC because it had no real role, not because of its strenght, different to the cyclone wich fill a very important role (a mobile harras unit that is strong against the stuff the hellion isn't strong)
EDIT: also apparently they listen Jakatak with the scan range thing, I wonder if they will listen to Lalush now
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
Love it! I don't care about any of the unit changes, they're going to change 100 times over anyways. What I'm REALLY excited about is that they're finally working on some of the flawed fundamentals of the game!
On February 13 2015 07:25 Lexender wrote: Why do everything needs to have a stupid gimmick to it?
You want a new gateway unit?
Keep whatever unit you have, take away the stupid ability, give it more life/attack, make it so it can only be created from gateways and not from warpgates.
Boom, strong core gateway unit that doesn't depends on robo units and at the same time it doesn't make gateway rushes super strong.
AKA the starbow dragoon
It's mesmerizing how simple and good it sounds, and yet they seem too proud to do it and prefer to come up with really gimmicky wannabe innovative things. But I shouldn't worry, they are "very happy with how it is currently playing out" and they know their stuff, right ?
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
It's supposed to be Protoss' expansion but is it me or is Protoss bad so far in LotV?
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
Merged with movement speed sounds OK. I tend to agree with you after all.
On February 13 2015 07:31 Anvil666 wrote: Love it! I don't care about any of the unit changes, they're going to change 100 times over anyways. What I'm REALLY excited about is that they're finally working on some of the flawed fundamentals of the game!
Oh I would love to hear what do you consider by "flawed fundamentals", don't tell me that reduced attack speed by 40% is the thing you are talking about.
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
It's supposed to be Protoss' expansion but is it me or is Protoss bad so far in LotV?
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
It's supposed to be Protoss' expansion but is it me or is Protoss bad so far in LotV?
Protoss expansion for the story
Doesn't mean they have to go through the end WoL (for T) and HotS (for Z) scheme again and make P suffer all LotV long ^^
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.
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.
On February 13 2015 07:01 blade55555 wrote: Nice I like most of the changes. Lotv is looking like a great.improvement. don't see how anyone could not be excited for the improvements.
Well, tell me what do you consider here improvement apart from Roach burrow movement?
Strange, that would have been the very last thing I'd have considered to be an improvement here. Really unnecessary, will make P life a hell in early game -as if ravagers weren't enough. Looks like banshee speed to me.
It is an improvement because rarely anyone gets that upgrade anyway. They will probably merge it with movement speed upgrade, and not make it come by default when burrow is upgraded. I also don't see that being a big of a deal right now when Protoss needs another gateway unit to be able to deal with Zerg in the early game, Ravagers already made Force Fields a lot less useful.
It's supposed to be Protoss' expansion but is it me or is Protoss bad so far in LotV?
No, it isn't supposed to be Protoss' expansion because single player campaign and multiplayer don't have anything to do with each other. Protoss will probably be overpowered as fuck in camping just like how Zerg was in theirs, lol.
Arguments about being "race's expansion" are really tiring, they don't make any sense especially because Blizzard leans toward balanced game and balance changes multiple times during one expansion because of patches and maps.
On February 13 2015 07:25 Lexender wrote: Why do everything needs to have a stupid gimmick to it?
You want a new gateway unit?
Keep whatever unit you have, take away the stupid ability, give it more life/attack, make it so it can only be created from gateways and not from warpgates.
Boom, strong core gateway unit that doesn't depends on robo units and at the same time it doesn't make gateway rushes super strong.
AKA the starbow dragoon
It's mesmerizing how simple and good it sounds, and yet they seem too proud to do it and prefer to come up with really gimmicky wannabe innovative things. But I shouldn't worry, they are "very happy with how it is currently playing out" and they know their stuff, right ?
Now that I think about it that may even make tanks useful again, TANKS, WITH YOUR BIO, IN TVP!!. Crazy stuff.
Why don't they just remove Tempests? It's a unit that overlaps with the carrier and voidray, it is basically a pointless unit that only existed so terrans can't make battlecruisers and zergs can't make broodlords...yawn.
Also lol at reducing attack speed and increasing attack damage to compensate, with the effect that hadly any difference in the pace was seen. No shit!
On February 13 2015 07:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why don't they just remove Tempests? It's a unit that overlaps with the carrier and voidray, it is basically a pointless unit that only existed so terrans can't make battlecruisers and zergs can't make broodlords...yawn.
It's the only reasonable thing to do, but they still need some time to accept the fact that an unit can actually be removed when it fulfills no role, limits the other races and can't be reworked because stargate tech tree is already fully fledged without it.
I really don't like the direction the Protoss design is heading. To me it feels like they are repeating the exact same mistake they did with HotS. The idea behind the new units seems to be: "We want Protoss to not aim for a deathball in every game but instead focus more on other stuff. Players demand another gateway unit. As a result we will provide a new gateway unit that works well in everything BUT a deathball." The problem here is that this was the intention behind the oracle aswell. A unit that works well in most stages of the game but cannot be massed or put into a 1-hotkey-deathball. And yet every protoss still aims to get to a solid deathball for the later stages of the game. The oracle, and most likely the new unit aswell, is only the means by which players achieve that goal. While it was kinda OK-ish for HotS since Protoss did not have that many different harass based openings during WoL, it's really not needed in LotV. We already have the Blinkstalkers, DTs, Warpprism, Phoenix and Oracle for exactly that task.
What's needed most, in my opinion at least, is another solid core army unit that trades well even on its own - unlike almost all other Protoss units. A Protoss army usually consists of many different units for a reason; each one of those units almost never trades well with the core army units of the other races. Unless in a chokepoint a Zealot will always lose to 4 Zerglings. A Stalker will lose to a Marauder. On top of the worse direct combat performance per ressource spend they also have the worst mobility compared to all other core units. Protoss units combat that deficit by having great synergy with each other and working very well in a maxed out army due to each unit having a dedicated roll in such an army. What that causes, however, is that the Protoss player usually keeps his army together since the parts of the army will perform fairly horribly when not supported by the other units. 2 Colossus left on their own against a small group of Marine/Marauder will usually just roll over and die without causing any damage - as we have recently seen in the herO vs. Maru game in the Proleague Playoffs. Same goes for a bunch of Stalker left alone.
Unless the new unit will be able to reliably end the game on it's own the Protoss will need to build up an army that is able to both beat the enemy army and end the game. And we're basically back to the WoL beta. There is a reason why the army that Stats used to win his NSSL r8 match against Rogue looks so similar to the army that MC used during the later stages of WoL... which in turn looked similar to an army that White-Ra used during the WoL beta. It's all that Protoss has been doing for the last 4 years and I'd be sad if nothing changes with LotV.
This general problem can be further examined by comparing the TvZ to any PvX matchup. The reason why I personally enjoy TvZ more than most other matchups is the fact that there are many small battles that start in the early game and continue well into the late lategame. It's rare that a single one of those battles decides the game but rather who came out ahead over the course of a dozen small skirmishes. It makes it both more action packed and easier to stage a spectacular comeback. Those games are usually percieved as back-and-forth with both commentators and spectators at times not being sure which players is actually ahead in the game. Protoss matchups are usually decided by a single engagement that neither player can effectively disengage from. The matches are dominated by a slow build-up of power from the Protoss with the Zerg/Terran trying to slow him down to get ahead in the eco game. It's rarely back-and-forth and comebacks are unlikely after a lost army engagement. If the protoss wins with his army still intact he usually won't be stopped in time. If the Protoss loses his army he won't be able to rebuild it in time to deflect the counterattack due to the core army units being very inefficient on their own against whatever the opponent brings to bear.
The poor performance of the gateway units becomes apparent when the Terran drops into the main (or any other expansion) of the Protoss while he is moving his army across the map or defending a different location. The main army will be too slow to defend against the drop and quick warp-ins will not be enough to defeat 1-2 medivacs of bio. As a result the Protoss player usually stays in his base and defends until he thinks that his army is strong enough to both kill the enemy and win a baserace.
The only way to change the stale and passive gameplay is to make another unit composition viable in the lategame aswell as provide the Protoss with a core unit that is strong enough to trade well against Marine/Marauder and basic Zerg units such as the Zergling or Roach.
A good example of such a unit is the Widowmine. Despite some of its flaws it achieves that role very well. It's both viable as an early game and lategame unit. It trades well on it's own and as a part of a large army. It can be produced quick and in large quantities. It controls space and can be used as a strong harass tool in combination with Medivacs. If the Terran sends out some Widowmines in combination with Marines and Medivacs it is a very mobile squad that will trade well and not cause the Terran player to instantly lose the game if those units get annihilated. The same is true with Ling/Blind and Roaches. But when was the last time you saw a Protoss move a bunch of Zealot/Stalker groups across the map against a Terran?
The more I think about it the more it seems that the Protoss really needs a Dragoon-type unit.
TL;DR: The new Protoss unit sounds too similar to the Stalker and seems to follow the same design idea as the oracle. It won't change the fact that Protoss will still move in a deathball across the map and it won't change the fact that Protoss has to remain passive the majority of the game(s). Can we please get a Gateway unit that still holds a candle against stimmed Bio or Roach/Hydra without relying on T3 splash tech?
Everything sounds pretty good, except for the combat speed change.. I am not sure how I feel about that. The slower combat works great in BW because that game has harder mechanics in general. I cant fucking imagine how low the skill ceiling will drop after a 40 percent change. Again, this is of course without witnessing it myself, so it is just speculation, don't hate.
On February 13 2015 07:45 Kaos_StarCraft wrote: "For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat."
Final proof once and for all blizzard either; 1) have no idea what they are doing, or 2) trolling
splitting, for example, would be easier with slower battles. makes sense
On the other hand, you would have more time to split better the "secondary" groups of units, so it could actually lead to an increase in the amount of micro actions
The problem is not the attack speed. The problem is the much lowered collision size of ranged units, allowing players to pack an incredible amount of ranged units in a small space. Anything that gets in range gets vaporized instantly. That's why they had to add abilities like charge to zealots and speed boost to medivacs just to keep them in line with their BW counterparts. Just increase collision size a bit so that marines aren't shooting in phalanx formation.
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.
On February 13 2015 08:17 Cricketer12 wrote: Protoss need a unit to get through midgame not gateway unit...i dunno about herc remove everything else is fine
Good thing Protoss has access to Gateway units in the mid-game!
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.
Wow I kinda like these changes esp "Experimenting with slowing down the pacing of combat in SC2".
Imo this will reduce the "win bec of luck" or "lose bec of a split sec mistake" in sc2. Excited for the New toss unit. Also can anyone elaborate this? : Scan range experimentation
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...
I'm digging some of these changes, really looking forward to what the new units will end up looking like. I just learned what scan range was and I'm glad to see they're experimenting with it. I love the Roach burrow buff too!
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...
I think this move is to remove or at least lessen the "split-second mistake = autolose" factor in the game. Because its really frustrating when it happens. In BW there's no such thing like that that you'll lose your entire army in less than 10 secs. I think it's a good idea. But not sure about 40%. But we'll have to see.
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.
1) I do not understand how blizzard designers have not pushed out more unit ideas through all this time. The shade seems forced and will be scrapped 100% because it does not fit an RTS. They keep coming up with ideas that would be great MOBA CHAMPION IDEAS (*COUGH LEAGUE OF LEGENDS ZED*) but have absolutely no place in an RTS where you can make 20 of that unit.
There's so many units that already exist that blizzard could use or do similar things to. Dark archon...ghost lockdown ability...some of the single player campaign units?
Either way, you can tell their design resources are coming from people that are either working on Heroes of the Storm or MOBA-ish. You cannot put units into SC2 with champion like abilities because SC2 is on a way different scale and having 20 ravagers aka 20 Kog Maws running around shooting artillery barrage is just going to break the game lol.
2) Economy changes. Are. BAD.
Most of you guys have maybe never played other RTS games. The smaller percentage of you that have played RTS other than Brood War/SC2 probably have never played an RTS game that went through with a similar and drastic economy change.
I am talking about Command and Conquer 3. I played CnC3 throughout it's entire life span, from beginning to it's death.
It's death came from no patches (which we already see has happened to SC2) but also from a mis-guided economy change to the game that players and designers all hoped would "encourage more micro opportunities and action."
Yeah...it basically screwed the game, made it slower. It was an excuse to not patch and balance the game essentially. Rather than balancing out the issues that plagued the game in terms of balance, that economy change went through and massively slowed down CnC3, and made for less action on the map because of less units.
In regards to SC2...at this point in the game guys, economy change is one of the worst possible ideas for SC2. It will not do what a lot of you guys think it will by "forcing action all over the map." It will destroy the game, i am telling you right now from experience of having seen an RTS go through it. No one has to believe me, just reference this post and my thoughts when you see SC2 game play is screwed up with LOTV due to an unnecessary and misguided economy change.
3) SLowing down of the game is a terrible idea, once again i know a lot of the circle jerk right now is that "slowing down the game will create more micro!" Well guess what, once again any of you that think this are wrong.
Slowing down the game isn't going to create more micro - it's going to make the game slow...and easier, and so anyone can micro or do amazing things. The best analogy i can make and the best statement i can make to succinctly describe my feelings on this is:
"Slowing down SC2 will make SC2 melt into Grey Goo."
For those of you that have not looked up or read about the RTS "Grey Goo," it's a brand new RTS advertised as basically not being fast like SC2. It's slow as fuck, and basically doomed from the start. We do not want SC2 to become Grey Goo or to get slower where it's bad for spectators, and bad for players because then it's harder for players to distinguish themselves from others via unique micro actions.
As an aside, Grey Goo should probably do what SC1 did and add a faster/fastest setting and that game might have the potential to take off
So yeh, that's about it. To sum up: a lot of casual SC2 observers and even some progamers seem very uninformed about the SC2 economy change. It's not going to create "mega action all over the map." It's most likely going to end up hurting the game hard.
Slowing down the game is bad, despite the circle jerk being to the contrary. 99% of the SC2 community just sees a youtube video about slowing down the game and believe what they are told about "more micro" when that is not going to be the case.
And blizzard needs to really get their stuff together right now and push out new units for LOTV...or use old units like the dark archon and rebrand them!
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.
By lowering the attack speed by 40% it's not terribly slower, even though it might be too harsh(maybe going down to something like 30%), and by letting all other values such as movement and damage values stay the same, you don't really take micro opportunities away but reward adjusting units mid-fight. Also fights are over slower so you actually have a little bit more time to look at the fight and see how it's going. Right now disengaging is, if you don't have the right units for that, impossible. This might actually encourage that!
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.
current pace is kinda off imo. In BW its way slower but you can't say that it has lower skill ceiling in terms of micro.
all sounds good to me. the combat engineer unit idea is something i've been saying should be in the terran arsenal since HotS beta. i wish they had come to that idea earlier so we didn't have to fart around with all these gimmicky toys they keep trying to give terran. new protoss unit idea sounds way more interesting than that AoE thing (is that currently still in the game? i hope not)
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.
current pace is kinda off imo. In BW its way slower but you can't say that it has lower skill ceiling in terms of micro.
brood war AI was also retarded, raising the skill ceiling. i hope some version of this slower combat makes it to beta though so we can at least see for ourselves how it pans out.
Another thought i had to add that warrants it's own post and can create discussion:
Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed.
I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed.
Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit.
Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill.
What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@
Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too
On February 13 2015 08:56 avilo wrote: Another thought i had to add that warrants it's own post and can create discussion:
Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed.
I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed.
Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit.
Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill.
What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@
Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too
The training missions (like the rush defense etc crap) is all set at normal, and I remember that being agonizingly slow
On February 13 2015 08:56 avilo wrote: Another thought i had to add that warrants it's own post and can create discussion:
Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed.
I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed.
Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit.
Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill.
What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@
Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too
The training missions (like the rush defense etc crap) is all set at normal, and I remember that being agonizingly slow
Oh yeah. I remember going through them to get I don't know which portrait, and that was infuriating.
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.
I like the changes, but the new toss unit sounds like a lot like a blink stalker. I don't know what a delayed blink ability will really add to the game or what role it would be filling?
All in all I feel LotV is in its current form so different from what we're used to that beta needs to come early so that changes can be extensively tested and reverted if necessary. I'm OK with a beta lasting until the end of 2015 WCS if that's how much time we need to determine what's best for what will essentially be SC's legacy. If LotV is bad, SC2 will be remembered as a bad game. Simple as that.
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.
The reason gateway units has to be weak according to blizz is because warpgate gives P too much power otherwise. They can warp them in anywhere, stuff like warpprism would be insanely much harder to deal with.
The way I've understod it according to blizz, either gateway units remain weak or warpgate tech has to go, which they really really don't want to do since.... its pretty much Ps staple thing nowadays.
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.
The reason gateway units has to be weak according to blizz is because warpgate gives P too much power otherwise. They can warp them in anywhere, stuff like warpprism would be insanely much harder to deal with.
The way I've understod it according to blizz, either gateway units remain weak or warpgate tech has to go, which they really really don't want to do since.... its pretty much Ps staple thing nowadays.
It's as much their thing as boring split-map games are a thing for ZvP, that doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
I really disagree with the retorts that that making the game slower isn't going to make have more micro.
If it's a bit slower, there's more time and opportunity to manuever units, more time more life is more inputs you need to micro as opposed to you throwing units at a problem, it melts in 2 seconds, then you bring new units to reinforce.
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.
The reason gateway units has to be weak according to blizz is because warpgate gives P too much power otherwise. They can warp them in anywhere, stuff like warpprism would be insanely much harder to deal with.
The way I've understod it according to blizz, either gateway units remain weak or warpgate tech has to go, which they really really don't want to do since.... its pretty much Ps staple thing nowadays.
That's great and all, but they wanted to severely nerf the warp-ins anyway (take longer, 200% damage taken during warp-in), and having 1 gateway unit that doesn't require several upgrades and(/or) a lot of micro to actually trade with anything (esp. now that forcefields lose a lot of their functionality against Zerg) would be reasonable. What could happen is that the meta could become stale very quickly. Maybe every P will see themself forced to open Stargate with an Oracle for detection and a safety Void-ray in LotV just so they won't get Ravager busted, just for example. A gateway unit that actually trades with Roaches without needing +1 and Blink would help mix things up without having to be outright broken.
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.
On February 13 2015 08:56 avilo wrote: Another thought i had to add that warrants it's own post and can create discussion:
Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed.
I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed.
Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit.
Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill.
What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@
Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too
I was thinking about this analogy too. The proposed change would not be as radical as normal speed, but I think your point stands even so.
I'd like to know why you think that the current economy changes would drag Starcraft to hell. You didn't offered any reasons.
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.
Yes, so range relations become less important. Instead of shielding your stuff from his stuff, you take your blob and move it into his blob and it doesn't matter a lot who has more/less range because you are not going to take severe losses while running in. That this would absolutely break units like zerglings/banelings or ultralisks who are balanced around having a hard time reaching stuff like MMM or Tank/Thor goes without saying. And yes, you are going to run more with your marines, but which unit profits more from more running, the zergling or the marine? It's the zergling, because he is like 1.5speed faster than the stimmed marine. And that just means less micro, because once caught by zerglings, there isn't so much micro left for either side. So somehow blizzard will have to account for that, by either also slowing movement speeds or doing lots of other balance changes due to that.
Generally speaking, if you want to see the difference between units with high health/low damage relations (a) or low health/high damage relations (b) you can compare that already: (a) Roach vs stalker/sentry battles. Very slow, lots of HP, little damage, lots of combat slowing abilities (blink, forcefield, burrow) Roach vs Roach battles Colossus/Stalker against Roach/hydra/Corruptor armies (b) Bio vs Zergling/Baneling battles Bio vs Mech battles, or biomech vs biomech Ling/bling vs ling/bling Zealot/Archon/Templar against Bio
I can only say that personally I'm enjoying the second category of battles much more. Shit dies, stuff happens. They are hard to control. The moment you can call the battle the battle is over. While with the others, you look at the established arcs and you know who is going to win, but it still takes another 30seconds until that side loses. And its not like the extra time in roach vs roach would be used for supercool micro moves. If you watch top-Zergs stream, they pull their wounded roaches behind the other ones because they have spare APM. It hardly matters and is hardly visible.
1) I do not understand how blizzard designers have not pushed out more unit ideas through all this time. The shade seems forced and will be scrapped 100% because it does not fit an RTS. They keep coming up with ideas that would be great MOBA CHAMPION IDEAS (*COUGH LEAGUE OF LEGENDS ZED*) but have absolutely no place in an RTS where you can make 20 of that unit.
There's so many units that already exist that blizzard could use or do similar things to. Dark archon...ghost lockdown ability...some of the single player campaign units?
Either way, you can tell their design resources are coming from people that are either working on Heroes of the Storm or MOBA-ish. You cannot put units into SC2 with champion like abilities because SC2 is on a way different scale and having 20 ravagers aka 20 Kog Maws running around shooting artillery barrage is just going to break the game lol.
2) Economy changes. Are. BAD.
Most of you guys have maybe never played other RTS games. The smaller percentage of you that have played RTS other than Brood War/SC2 probably have never played an RTS game that went through with a similar and drastic economy change.
I am talking about Command and Conquer 3. I played CnC3 throughout it's entire life span, from beginning to it's death.
It's death came from no patches (which we already see has happened to SC2) but also from a mis-guided economy change to the game that players and designers all hoped would "encourage more micro opportunities and action."
Yeah...it basically screwed the game, made it slower. It was an excuse to not patch and balance the game essentially. Rather than balancing out the issues that plagued the game in terms of balance, that economy change went through and massively slowed down CnC3, and made for less action on the map because of less units.
In regards to SC2...at this point in the game guys, economy change is one of the worst possible ideas for SC2. It will not do what a lot of you guys think it will by "forcing action all over the map." It will destroy the game, i am telling you right now from experience of having seen an RTS go through it. No one has to believe me, just reference this post and my thoughts when you see SC2 game play is screwed up with LOTV due to an unnecessary and misguided economy change.
3) SLowing down of the game is a terrible idea, once again i know a lot of the circle jerk right now is that "slowing down the game will create more micro!" Well guess what, once again any of you that think this are wrong.
Slowing down the game isn't going to create more micro - it's going to make the game slow...and easier, and so anyone can micro or do amazing things. The best analogy i can make and the best statement i can make to succinctly describe my feelings on this is:
"Slowing down SC2 will make SC2 melt into Grey Goo."
For those of you that have not looked up or read about the RTS "Grey Goo," it's a brand new RTS advertised as basically not being fast like SC2. It's slow as fuck, and basically doomed from the start. We do not want SC2 to become Grey Goo or to get slower where it's bad for spectators, and bad for players because then it's harder for players to distinguish themselves from others via unique micro actions.
As an aside, Grey Goo should probably do what SC1 did and add a faster/fastest setting and that game might have the potential to take off
So yeh, that's about it. To sum up: a lot of casual SC2 observers and even some progamers seem very uninformed about the SC2 economy change. It's not going to create "mega action all over the map." It's most likely going to end up hurting the game hard.
Slowing down the game is bad, despite the circle jerk being to the contrary. 99% of the SC2 community just sees a youtube video about slowing down the game and believe what they are told about "more micro" when that is not going to be the case.
And blizzard needs to really get their stuff together right now and push out new units for LOTV...or use old units like the dark archon and rebrand them!
Oh god, I'm the biggest scrub ever and normal speed is even too slow for me! Slowing it down to "fast" would be bad enough, but NORMAL? Come on, even when I was in silver league normal was way too slow.
My first impression is that the Shade ability sounds very complicated, when at its core it's just Blink. From the sound of it it has a decent core though, as a ranged anti-ground unit with normal speed. If Blizzard were still trying to push a new harass unit like they mentioned last time, the description of that unit would have been very different.
The "shade" sounds like another gimmicky unit, it does fit the race. But what does it do? a teleporting zealot? is that what the race really needs?... Blink stalker, blink zealots rush... sounds great... cough cough
MOBA units galore... shade unit, recall, timewarp... so out of place and weird.
On February 13 2015 09:33 SoleSteeler wrote: Shade thing may be interesting, but i agree with the idea that they need a core gateway unit that doesbt get annihilated by bio or roach ling hydra...
Against Zerg Protoss never had a problem fighting roach/hydra/ling with gateway units, they had a problem having the economy for it (also infestors absolutely shredded such stuff in WoL). HotS Gateway expand into fast third nexus builds have solved that. Protoss can rely on Sentry/Stalker very heavily against Roach/Hydra based play, because they aren't behind in the economy anymore and thus don't have to make up for that with hardcountering the units.
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.
I can only say that personally I'm enjoying the second category of battles much more. Shit dies, stuff happens. They are hard to control. The moment you can call the battle the battle is over. While with the others, you look at the established arcs and you know who is going to win, but it still takes another 30seconds until that side loses. And its not like the extra time in roach vs roach would be used for supercool micro moves. If you watch top-Zergs stream, they pull their wounded roaches behind the other ones because they have spare APM. It hardly matters and is hardly visible.
My opinion is exact the same. I was even thinking about how roach vs roach battles would be the most annoying thing to watch and play.
The reasoning behind this change for a lot of people is this: its unfair losing your 200/200 army in seconds due to not paying attention to the minimap for a split of second. That's a frustanting situation, for sure, but its a mistake that requires skill to avoid (mini map awereness, reaction time, proper positioning etc). I'm open for new and radical changes, but I can not help but thinking that this proposed change would just make the game easier reducing the skill ceiling in the process.
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...
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...
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.
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 09:05 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
Has Blizzard thought about fixing the unit clustering?
I think that is like the main problem of starcraft II.
If you look at the only match up (TvZ) where the units are forced to be spread out (marines have to spread out to avoid getting fucked by banelings, mines spread out to minimize cluster damage, etc) and look how long a single push/engagements can last. You can have like 5 minutes of tug-of-war as both armies keep getting reinforced and keep fighting for every inch of space, unlike other match ups where a single engagement can determine the whole game.
I feel like the economy change is a good chance for blizzard to make harassment like mutas/massive warp ins/ doom drops a lot less effective. Being able to harass without needing to have some way to get over cliffs due to more spread out bases means hopefully things like medivac speed can be removed.
I always felt like medivac speed was a kind of arms race blizzard had with the pros, they found that dropping wasn't as effective so they made it far easier to drop. In reality, all this does is pros start using builds that defend drops more easily and the meta is back to square one, while the average ladder player is super frustrated by how drops are now far lower-risk. Does anybody else feel this way?
As much as I would like some battles to be slowed down just a touch, I think it's impossible; it will require the whole game to be rebalanced, since not all unit interactions scale linearly with damage or speed.
On February 13 2015 11:07 SoleSteeler wrote: 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...
Since that statement was made as response/agreement to a post of mine I think I can give the details/context: No this is not balance whine. What this is, is the idea that boosting around with 10medivacs filled with tank/bio in TvT destroys a lot of the opportunities to regularily move around on the map. Because if you go out, your opponent boosts in and kills you. Or say you have a tank that is positioned to cover the front. Then a bunch of hellbats get boosted onto it (and I'm absolutely no flash fetishist or wanting to blame some game aspect on why he loses here)
I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move, boosters+air movement always means that the attacker has a movement advantage. You have to sit tight if your opponent goes for these sorts of strategies (medivacs or mutalisks; personally I'd add Zerglings in ZvP too, since Protoss doesn't have a mobile counter like the hellion or the zergling/the roach). What it does is that because one side has a massive movement advantage in certain situations, the game has to be balanced in ways that the side without the movement advantage is allowed to play the most boring sit-back style and keep all the army together, because you cannot split if your opponent has the ability to fly/run in and overwhelm half your army with all of his army quickly.
It works out nicely if both sides have the fast units (hellions vs zerglings; mutas vs drops). It's interesting if the units are used in low amounts (the single/double drop; the first 10mutas; small groups of zergling harass). It becomes a turtlegame quickly if one side cannot (Protoss vs bio, Protoss vs Zerg) field appropriate fast counters. And when you can field such counters, you are often forced to field them (hellion openings, muta/ling/bling playstyle) and cannot use other playstyles.
It's not that the units lead to racial imbalance. But I feel like they are passing a threshold where their mobility becomes counterproductive to the amount of action going on. One side simply cannot move out or they will quickly be overwhelmed either on the map or in their base, the other side cannot move in, because the other player does nothing but take more countermeasures so that eventually he can move out when everything in his base is bulletproof and his army "unbeatable".
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Exactly and this worries me. Where is the directing idea ? It's like they listen to the community on some things but throw in random retarded things with them, and all this is ending up to be a mess.
I mean why so many changes ? If you take out the SH stalemates and a rather stale PvT, everything else is going quite fine. SH stalemate is being dealt with -even in HotS- and that's absolutely fine, but what do the other changes achieve and what is their goal ? I don't see any deep insight here. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, bones thrown at us, food for thought that doesn't seem to feed anything concrete yet.
People have done nothing but complain about their not being enough changes in HotS coming from WoL.
If anything I've kept complaining about how HotS kept creating problems WoL did not have. Medivac boost + muta regen forced mothership core + spore bio damage buff, tempests killed brood lords that were already fine after infestor nerf and SH... do I need to elaborate on that one ? WoL + fungal nerfs + phoenix range increase + ultra buffs + maybe viper would have been a great game.
I like both the medivac boost and muta regen, actually these makes the games both more fun to play and more fun to watch. Terran is basically awesome to watch now if you see players using them to their full extent. Muta regen is actually needed to even have a chance against medivac boost, thor prioritizing air and phoenix range upgrade. I think mutas were better in WoL because of how much better counters the other races have to it now.
Spore damge boost to bio is super important, I play muta in ZvZ everyday and I like this change, says quite a bit.
MSC and tempest is a problem I agree, they are working on trying and fixing that for lotv.
Not at all. Most Zergs are abusing how good mutas are now.
On February 13 2015 11:07 SoleSteeler wrote: 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...
Since that statement was made as response/agreement to a post of mine I think I can give the details/context: No this is not balance whine. What this is, is the idea that boosting around with 10medivacs filled with tank/bio in TvT destroys a lot of the opportunities to regularily move around on the map. Because if you go out, your opponent boosts in and kills you. Or say you have a tank that is positioned to cover the front. Then a bunch of hellbats get boosted onto it (and I'm absolutely no flash fetishist or wanting to blame some game aspect on why he loses here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hI1UuY06GCM#t=1238 I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move, boosters+air movement always means that the attacker has a movement advantage. You have to sit tight if your opponent goes for these sorts of strategies (medivacs or mutalisks; personally I'd add Zerglings in ZvP too, since Protoss doesn't have a mobile counter like the hellion or the zergling/the roach). What it does is that because one side has a massive movement advantage in certain situations, the game has to be balanced in ways that the side without the movement advantage is allowed to play the most boring sit-back style and keep all the army together, because you cannot split if your opponent has the ability to fly/run in and overwhelm half your army with all of his army quickly.
It works out nicely if both sides have the fast units (hellions vs zerglings; mutas vs drops). It's interesting if the units are used in low amounts (the single/double drop; the first 10mutas; small groups of zergling harass). It becomes a turtlegame quickly if one side cannot (Protoss vs bio, Protoss vs Zerg) field appropriate fast counters. And when you can field such counters, you are often forced to field them (hellion openings, muta/ling/bling playstyle) and cannot use other playstyles.
It's not that the units lead to racial imbalance. But I feel like they are passing a threshold where their mobility becomes counterproductive to the amount of action going on. One side simply cannot move out or they will quickly be overwhelmed either on the map or in their base, the other side cannot move in, because the other player does nothing but take more countermeasures so that eventually he can move out when everything in his base is bulletproof and his army "unbeatable".
Yeah I'm with you in that TvT is becoming so stale nowadays, all games are doom drop base trades, all the positioning wars from WoL are gone.
And this is not only with medivacs; mutas, oracles, warp prism (to an extent) and others have this problem.
It's bad design, because these units create very hard counter situations, like the oracle where if a build doesn't have 6 marines, a turret or a WM is just an insta lose, and in response it narrows down the strateginc options that a player needs to make.
I'm okey with fast stuff that keeps the game flowing and about encouraging aggression and harras, but not to the extent were they shut down strategies and play styles, a player should be rewarded for microing their units instead of making such hard counter situations.
The worst is that this is was Blizzards supposed way to discourage death ball play, instead what we had is that death balls are still strong but now we get punished if we don't turtle defend.
On February 13 2015 11:07 SoleSteeler wrote: 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...
Since that statement was made as response/agreement to a post of mine I think I can give the details/context: No this is not balance whine. What this is, is the idea that boosting around with 10medivacs filled with tank/bio in TvT destroys a lot of the opportunities to regularly move around on the map. Because if you go out, your opponent boosts in and kills you. Or say you have a tank that is positioned to cover the front. Then a bunch of hellbats get boosted onto it (and I'm absolutely no flash fetishist or wanting to blame some game aspect on why he loses here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hI1UuY06GCM#t=1238 I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move, boosters+air movement always means that the attacker has a movement advantage. You have to sit tight if your opponent goes for these sorts of strategies (medivacs or mutalisks; personally I'd add Zerglings in ZvP too, since Protoss doesn't have a mobile counter like the hellion or the zergling/the roach). What it does is that because one side has a massive movement advantage in certain situations, the game has to be balanced in ways that the side without the movement advantage is allowed to play the most boring sit-back style and keep all the army together, because you cannot split if your opponent has the ability to fly/run in and overwhelm half your army with all of his army quickly.
It works out nicely if both sides have the fast units (hellions vs zerglings; mutas vs drops). It's interesting if the units are used in low amounts (the single/double drop; the first 10mutas; small groups of zergling harass). It becomes a turtlegame quickly if one side cannot (Protoss vs bio, Protoss vs Zerg) field appropriate fast counters. And when you can field such counters, you are often forced to field them (hellion openings, muta/ling/bling playstyle) and cannot use other playstyles.
It's not that the units lead to racial imbalance. But I feel like they are passing a threshold where their mobility becomes counterproductive to the amount of action going on. One side simply cannot move out or they will quickly be overwhelmed either on the map or in their base, the other side cannot move in, because the other player does nothing but take more countermeasures so that eventually he can move out when everything in his base is bulletproof and his army "unbeatable".
Like you said, "in certain situations". Im not the worlds greatest player and I dont keep up on everything that goes on in the scene but I recall the reason why Terran got med boost was because drops became extremely risky and all inish and were doing little to no damage (especially after they nurfed the medivacs base speed and accel). Most drops ended with lost medivacs and supply, especially against Protoss who have warp ins.
In limited situations a boosted all in drop is devastating, but what about Warp Prisms? You get the same effect from much less of an investment anytime you're playing against T or Z. If Terran moves out and somehow doesnt build enough Vikings to dismantle that first Warp Prism then P just ties up their army mid field while they freely warp in in their base. They arent just limited by whats in that ship either, they get to warp in an army of zealots and DTs, forcing the Terran/Zerg Player to have to split their attention. I will freely admit that if the Warp Prism does die then it becomes much less of an issue because a Toss is rarely going to spend the time needed to remake one when they need Col more, but again, if we are talking about "specific situations" it seems more like that Warp Prism and Muta regen are way more of an issue than speedvac.
Zerg has trash in base def against Warp Prism when having to also multi task against Toss death ball, Terran is in the same situation against both. What does Toss have to deal with all of these things? Recall, Warp In, Storm, Blink, and if theyre being extremely frisky, Phoenix. Keep in mind here that the ONLY one of these options a Protoss player wont have in most of their match ups is Phoenix.
Its clear that all match ups arent going to be "even", simply because how the game works now you are always limited in your builds. So yeah while MedBoost kind of OP for TvT and those base trade scenarios vs other races (which the other races have a much better ability to blunt or rebuild from than T) I dont think Medboost is the problem everyone keeps wanting to say it is. Between Toss myriad of defensive abilities and Zergs rallying potential vs light drops TvT is the only time where I see Medboost being an "issue", and thats if you ignore all the other ways in the other match ups that Z and P just trash Terran mech in general.
To me this line of yours: I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move Can be applied to so many different sitations that applying it only to medboost seems disingenuous.
Shade sounds pretty interesting but I wonder how that would work in the actual game. Also glad that they are taking out herc and with the change in damage rate, I think protoss will have easier time to focus on gateway units rather than stay clumped because of hyper aggressive mobile terran army
Again: new unit idea for terran. There is no race with an air unit that deals aoe (with exception o seeker missile and not counting glave worm). Give terran a bomber that has an ability to go on a "bombing run". The terran player would draw a line on the map LoL esque of set length. This path would be visible to the opponent and he would then have so many seconds to micro his units from the bombing run path. Give the bomber a lot of health so it can just be focused down midway through its run. This ability could be used to cut off armies from retreating, dividing armies, making air only a more viable option for terran, etc. It could be used to harass min lines too. Idk. I hope they read this.
Medivacs are rediculously strong. Probably the strongest caster / support unit in the game. If there was a unit that just did drops, even without the speed boost, Terran would still make it. If there was a ground unit with no attack and no abilities that just healed Bio, Terran would likely still make it. The myth about Terran Bio being so strong is entirely because we see Bio getting supported by Medivacs which turn the relatively slow, fragile, kamikaze bioball into a tanky, mobile, high DPS, microable, regenerating force. Speed boost reduces the risks involved with drops substantially and opens new opportunities, and the fact that you'd make medivacs for healing alone means that you'll have a lot to use for big doom drops later in the game.
At the same time, the game is currently balanced around Terran having the speed boost Medivac. If you try to remove the speed boost or otherwise nerf Medivac's, you'd need to give Terran some serious staying power or mobility buffs to compensate.
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.
The reason gateway units has to be weak according to blizz is because warpgate gives P too much power otherwise. They can warp them in anywhere, stuff like warpprism would be insanely much harder to deal with.
The way I've understod it according to blizz, either gateway units remain weak or warpgate tech has to go, which they really really don't want to do since.... its pretty much Ps staple thing nowadays.
Blizzard seems to believe that what protoss lacks is a dedicated niche harass unit. Instead, I believe that what they need is the ability to move out on the map and do light pressure without (a) being worried about dying to a game-ending counterattack and (b) without being worried about surrounded and instantly dying.
Despite the consensus that warpgate buffs can accomplish this, that recommendation ignores the fact that a buff to warpgate units would strenghten either protoss all-ins/timing-attacks, instead of making it easier for toss to do light pressure in the game (as we see in TvZ for instance). Thus, the solution should be to make protoss more reliant on production from "normal" infastructure where your units takes time to build and doesn't spawn right next to the enemy base. "Normal production" units can be buffed so they are strong enough to combat the enemy in the midgame without resulting in unintended consequences (unlike warpgate units).
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.
I still have no idea how a scan range will change the responsiveness of the unit. I thought this only had noticeably impacts for situations such as Stalkers vs Widow Mines.
Our current plans are to remove this ability for the start of beta and see how the Thor works without the added complexity of a different mode or an active ability.
The Thor is extremely boring, and needs to be a lot more responsive in order to be more microable. Click-and-effect abilities are pointless in themselves, but abilities can be fun if they are part of a great micro-interaciton. I happen to believe that the transformation-concept has potential, but it needs to be something which you need to do frequently during engagements to optimize its usage. When transformation is only something you can do prior to a an engagement it becomes quite boring.
Roach burrow move now works when Burrow is researched and no longer requires an upgrade. This ability allows for some cool micro that we’d like to see more of in Void, so we made it a bit more accessible for now. We’re also considering increasing the movement speed of Roaches while burrowed.
The by far most obvious change here is to allow Roaches to burrow/unburrow instantly without the 0.5-1 second delay. Some times I don't know why Blizzard constantly try to go for all of the complicated and ineffective "solutions":
Slowing down the game is bad, despite the circle jerk being to the contrary. 99% of the SC2 community just sees a youtube video about slowing down the game and believe what they are told about "more micro" when that is not going to be the case.
This is true though it's important to differentiate between what type of speed we are talking about. For the economy, it is imo very important that players can take bases and have the addequate unit count to be able to defend it. Otherwise, it will lead to slower base-taking and in fact less multitasking. In terms of the duration of engagement, Sc2's main issue is that micro in many situations (esp with protoss) simply isn't rewarded. E.g. changing the movement speed of units wouldn't make Collosus and Immortals more microable, while changing the attack-speed merely inflates the duration of engagement (without adding more micro), and it will also reduce the skill cap of stutter-stepping as a high battle-APM is less rewarded.
The duration of the battles therefore isn't the issue in itself, but rather it's the design of the units.
On February 13 2015 11:07 SoleSteeler wrote: 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...
Since that statement was made as response/agreement to a post of mine I think I can give the details/context: No this is not balance whine. What this is, is the idea that boosting around with 10medivacs filled with tank/bio in TvT destroys a lot of the opportunities to regularly move around on the map. Because if you go out, your opponent boosts in and kills you. Or say you have a tank that is positioned to cover the front. Then a bunch of hellbats get boosted onto it (and I'm absolutely no flash fetishist or wanting to blame some game aspect on why he loses here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hI1UuY06GCM#t=1238 I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move, boosters+air movement always means that the attacker has a movement advantage. You have to sit tight if your opponent goes for these sorts of strategies (medivacs or mutalisks; personally I'd add Zerglings in ZvP too, since Protoss doesn't have a mobile counter like the hellion or the zergling/the roach). What it does is that because one side has a massive movement advantage in certain situations, the game has to be balanced in ways that the side without the movement advantage is allowed to play the most boring sit-back style and keep all the army together, because you cannot split if your opponent has the ability to fly/run in and overwhelm half your army with all of his army quickly.
It works out nicely if both sides have the fast units (hellions vs zerglings; mutas vs drops). It's interesting if the units are used in low amounts (the single/double drop; the first 10mutas; small groups of zergling harass). It becomes a turtlegame quickly if one side cannot (Protoss vs bio, Protoss vs Zerg) field appropriate fast counters. And when you can field such counters, you are often forced to field them (hellion openings, muta/ling/bling playstyle) and cannot use other playstyles.
It's not that the units lead to racial imbalance. But I feel like they are passing a threshold where their mobility becomes counterproductive to the amount of action going on. One side simply cannot move out or they will quickly be overwhelmed either on the map or in their base, the other side cannot move in, because the other player does nothing but take more countermeasures so that eventually he can move out when everything in his base is bulletproof and his army "unbeatable".
Like you said, "in certain situations". Im not the worlds greatest player and I dont keep up on everything that goes on in the scene but I recall the reason why Terran got med boost was because drops became extremely risky and all inish and were doing little to no damage (especially after they nurfed the medivacs base speed and accel). Most drops ended with lost medivacs and supply, especially against Protoss who have warp ins.
In limited situations a boosted all in drop is devastating, but what about Warp Prisms? You get the same effect from much less of an investment anytime you're playing against T or Z. If Terran moves out and somehow doesnt build enough Vikings to dismantle that first Warp Prism then P just ties up their army mid field while they freely warp in in their base. They arent just limited by whats in that ship either, they get to warp in an army of zealots and DTs, forcing the Terran/Zerg Player to have to split their attention. I will freely admit that if the Warp Prism does die then it becomes much less of an issue because a Toss is rarely going to spend the time needed to remake one when they need Col more, but again, if we are talking about "specific situations" it seems more like that Warp Prism and Muta regen are way more of an issue than speedvac.
Zerg has trash in base def against Warp Prism when having to also multi task against Toss death ball, Terran is in the same situation against both. What does Toss have to deal with all of these things? Recall, Warp In, Storm, Blink, and if theyre being extremely frisky, Phoenix. Keep in mind here that the ONLY one of these options a Protoss player wont have in most of their match ups is Phoenix.
Its clear that all match ups arent going to be "even", simply because how the game works now you are always limited in your builds. So yeah while MedBoost kind of OP for TvT and those base trade scenarios vs other races (which the other races have a much better ability to blunt or rebuild from than T) I dont think Medboost is the problem everyone keeps wanting to say it is. Between Toss myriad of defensive abilities and Zergs rallying potential vs light drops TvT is the only time where I see Medboost being an "issue", and thats if you ignore all the other ways in the other match ups that Z and P just trash Terran mech in general.
To me this line of yours: I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move Can be applied to so many different sitations that applying it only to medboost seems disingenuous.
In the original post I was also including warp prisms. Fact of the matter is that this is a relationship problem, as I tried to lay out above. Nearly everything that I describe above can be translated to other units - in particular mutalisks - as well, I should have been clearer about that. Hope that clears
To me this line of yours: I think this limits the players too much. You can't move out, because regardless how you move Can be applied to so many different sitations that applying it only to medboost seems disingenuous.
that up a little more.
And even beyond the mentioned units it is a problem. The blink stalker problem roots back to maps on which the blinking Protoss could navigate his whole combatcapable army faster from one base to another than the defendig Terran. Maps with huge airspaces around the bases have been called out as a problem for WoL PvZ in 2011 due to mutalisks. Now we see that problem again with medivacs (e.g. Catallena). The defensive capabilities in the gameplay of Protoss are so strong, because they are necessary to fend of these sorts of units.
In my opinion, the often quoted blizzard-statement that towards the end of WoL drop-play was extinct is simply not true. There were some great examples of players being dismantled by drop play all through 2012-13 WoL. But yes, the pure "I'm gonna drop till you're dead" approach of 2011 MMA wasn't viable anymore. The question is, was that a bad thing? Everything in the game will always become more and more figured out and more and more methodical. You don't bring the wild days of "on the fly decision-based play" back by making the units faster. All that happens is that those buffs will be used to create new standard method's of play that lead to standard responses of counter-play. I believe that 2012-13 drop play was a very matured and interesting strategy. You could utilize it early, but it needed the opponent to screw up. Where it was shining was in particular in the lategame against slow compositions like BL/Infestor and on specific "bigger" maps (Whirlwind). Innovation picking apar Stephano, Ryung killing DRG are all examples of great play where drops were utilized to punish very slow compositions. But I don't see the need why drops (or mutas, or warp prisms) should be able to punish decently mobile compositions if the defender really plays it well. But that was the intention behind the mutalisk/medivac buffs and it has led to counterbuffs to and introduction of turtle-tools such as sporecrawlers or the Nexus Canon. Regardless how much people whine about the photon overcharge, blizzard cannot really nerf it for as long as the Terran can reach 2-3 Protoss bases faster from an offensive position, than the Protoss from a defensive position. It's the blink problem all over again, just that in this case it wasn't solved by limiting maps, but by giving Protoss an ermergency button that basically says "not here, not now".
Now instead of solving problems by countermeasures, I'd like blizzard in LotV to directly target the problems and all the established-but-problematic countermeasures affiliated. That is tuning down the medivac boosters in some way (in the most uncreative case, removing them). That is tuning down the mutalisk regeneration, so that you actually have to care for defenses more. That is warpgate nerfs so that a single warp prism cannot just win the game all that cheaply (blizzard is doing something there) but is used more for normal dropping. That is tuning down the photon overcharge. Getting rid of the bandaid +vs bio sporecrawler solutions that were abused to create ultimate swarm host turtles until they also repaired BLs against Vipers. Do something that prevents the insanely early blink/MsC allins even on maps like Yeonsu (though they did some good stuff; but for LotV they could just go with the warp-in solution, stalkers cannot blink up anymore and then that problem simply cannot reoccur and maps can stop featuring dead space everywhere).
But yes, the pure "I'm gonna drop till you're dead" approach of 2011 MMA wasn't viable anymore. The question is, was that a bad thing?
I think the MMA style of 2011 was very entertaining because the drop-play didn't replace actual engagements from happening. Loading out 2 dropships in two different directions while moving out with the main army at a 3rd location added so many opportunities for micro, which made it more exciting to watch.
Moreover note that the zerg could respond to this dropplay reactively while doomdrops is something that must be prevented from ever occuring in the first place.
There were some great examples of players being dismantled by drop play all through 2012-13 WoL.
You seem to imply that we saw lots of drops at that time but just not the mass medivac-thing, but I think that's misleading. The "examples" you bring up are games you remember for the sole reason that they were unique/rare. That would be ok if the standard type of game was entertaining and had lots of engagements, but it wasn't. The normal game was timing-attack/passive deathball, and dropplay was really the only way that frequent engagements could occur in the first place.
HOTS buffed both the doomdrop style and the 1-2 medivac dropplaystyle. Ideally, only the latter (1-2 dropship) should have been buffed, and I think part of the issue here is that terran gets the doom-drop style for free. If on the other hand, Medivac required like a 25/25 cost be able to load units in, people would think twice before getting lots of dropships in the midgame. On the other hand, it would also complicate the game a bit.
Why does the new units (specifically the toss ones) have to have quirky abilities. Toss needs a core unit. Not a "phantom stalker" or whatever. and the stupid whirlwind unit or whatever just makes yet ANOTHER unit for terran to micro against and one that toss merely a clicks into the opposing army
On February 13 2015 11:07 SoleSteeler wrote: 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...
I think people's complaints are kind of justified when they're going back on pretty much every change they proposed at blizzcon other than the resource thing. It just seems like they've given up.
Every time Blizzard shows their work it feels to me like they don't know what's wrong with SC2 so they're breaking it into its individual pieces and seeing if there's anything wrong with any of them. A logical strategy that any coder would use, of course, but little do they know that those are symptoms of an underlying problem, which is the total lack of talent on Blizzard's part!
Just the other day Tastosis were talking about how the Swarm Host is literally the worst thing that ever happened to SC2. Blizzard said they were working on a complete redesign of the SH, but I don't see how they thought it was a good idea in the first place.
On February 13 2015 13:27 Shinespark wrote: Every time Blizzard shows their work it feels to me like they don't know what's wrong with SC2 so they're breaking it into its individual pieces and seeing if there's anything wrong with any of them. A logical strategy that any coder would use, of course, but little do they know that those are symptoms of an underlying problem, which is the total lack of talent on Blizzard's part!
Just the other day Tastosis were talking about how the Swarm Host is literally the worst thing that ever happened to SC2. Blizzard said they were working on a complete redesign of the SH, but I don't see how they thought it was a good idea in the first place.
Exactly my thoughts. Remember how Blizz marketed SH? As a siege breaker? And look where it ended up. Their understanding of the game seems lacking compared to pros and the units end up being used in ways far different than initially planned.
Why remove the interesting Terran unit and not the broken one? Throw the cyclone, keep the Herc and rename it cyclone if you don't like (stupid) acronyms.
For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat.
On February 13 2015 15:06 OtherWorld wrote:
TIL skill=speed. Thanks Blizzard, I'm sure all the (ex-)WC3 pro players appreciate to know that.
It's an excuse, they can't really be so dumb as to believe that... They're pretending to listen. It's a way to say we tried fixing the problem everyones told us about but you were all wrong and we were right all along. More of the old bullshit. My positivity about LotV is slipping away, its going to be another small handful of new units and a few more workers at the start..
I really wish they'd release an alpha build for us to test. I'm REALLY interested to see how the DPS changes affect the game.
Honestly, they just need to add the Medic, Firebat, Vulture, Science Vessel, Dragoon, Arbiter, Reaver and Defiler back into the game. Remove Hellion, Hellbat, Raven, Mothership Core, Oracle, Colossus, Roach and Corruptor.
For me, and I'm generalizing, every update is Blizzard gutting their ideas/units. T.T
For me, it seems they are too worried about being perfect/right on the first try, as if the moment the expansion is released, then support for the game would become considerably limited.
Bah.... Herc seemed like so much fun with the grappling ability. I mean, look at the demo games they did at blizzcon (i think it was).
And as some posters above me noted, Blizzard is being way too conservative with their designs. It's as if they consider an expansion to be something that should never ever change.
What is stopping them from just going bat shit crazy with new units or gameplay changes with LotV and keep competitive play at HotS for a few more months while they work out the kinks after release?
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
Bah...I clicked "Approve" and I'm a Terran with no conflict of interest :p. It just didn't seem like HERC would be working. But obviously I want some unit to replace it ;D
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
Bah...I clicked "Approve" and I'm a Terran with no conflict of interest :p. It just didn't seem like HERC would be working. But obviously I want some unit to replace it ;D
I'd rather have Blizzard remove a few units from the game, units like the thor and tempest never seem to work out well anyway, so instead I'll predict that Blizzard will test a lot of changes for those two units only to keep them in their current state forever, which would be highly symptomatic for Blizzard's approach to SC2 in general.
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
I think 70% were people who just thought the HERC filled no role and was boring/stupid overall.
same thing could be said about the mighty swarmhost but that one made it live
We are lucky blizzard learns from their mistakes then. Now i hope they will change the game enough to allow Z to fight other late game armies reliably without the SH.
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
I think 70% were people who just thought the HERC filled no role and was boring/stupid overall.
same thing could be said about the mighty swarmhost but that one made it live
Well, the Swarmhos has a role - it might be boring and stupid, but as it was mentioned quite often already: Zerg need them to even stand a chance lategame. The HERC... well... isn't really necessary, is he?
Blizzard's concept for the new terrain unit seems remarkably like a ground-based raven. Much like how the swarm host was a ground based version of the brood lord. And their new unit ideas tend to be based on existing moba designs as well. This is one reason why other rts franchises preferably should exist, to experiment with design concepts that Blizzard can't really afford. Instead now it's mobas that fill the headspace of blizzard designers.
As an example, the new protoss unit idea seems intriguing, but I don't know if it really works for an RTS game. At this point it's almost like you want Blizzard to globally reduce income (therefore reducing number of units) just so that the game is more naturally amiable towards the concepts they keep coming up with. Clearly that's the type of game they seem to want to make in their heart of hearts anyhow.
On February 13 2015 05:43 Clonester wrote: So SCV is back again Terrans best melee unit.
As it should be
Only until the Super Mega Battle SCV comes out!
The latest design we’ve tested for this unit slot is a combat construction type of unit that travels with your army and constructs useful things mid-field to support your bio army. 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. We’ll continue to pursue potential new units that fit into the Terran army and we’d love to hear your feedback on this topic.
Mining like 4.3 SCVs, it is only logical the MULE receives 4.3 times the dps of a standard SCV, triggering the unstoppable rax 12 into SCV pull + MULE into the enemy base rush!
Oh God, this makes me remember this 12 workers at start thing is still there. /:
really need to set up a campaign against this horror that kills most proxies :'(
considering the complete debacle at the Blizzcon demo why isn't the Cyclone gone....most ridiculous unit ever, basically winning the game just by making one of them.. but only slightly in comparison to hellbats and widow mines. I am completely stunned that Blizzard actually gave zerg a free upgrade. I thought helping zerg like that was illegal (terran vehicle and ship upgrades condensed, hellbat upgrade automatic, siege tank upgrade automatic, tech lab requirement for reaper removed, etc) Why are certain units or abilities which are so obviously imbalanced even making it into serious consideration in the first place... Thor auto repair? Great move getting rid of it. Why was it even there in the first place?? don't get me started on Battle Cruiser teleport. why not give Ultralisks energy to transfuse themselves and broodlords a teleport ability while you're at it... this new protoss unit? come on. all they have to do now is send a bunch of shadows to each opponent mineral line and their opponent is unable to move out and attack them. absolutely ridiculous...I was considering getting LotV just for the campaign, as I can't see ever seriously playing it on ladder with all that is being messed with, it's hard enough taking HOTS seriously with reaper timings (faster than lings for 2 minutes in early game, free harass and scouting and auto heal so you lose nothing), hellbats (high splash damage plus healing for a mech unit and it costs ZERO gas??) and widow mines still needing to be nerfed. Would blizzard consider giving zerg a roach that - attacks air - attacks while burrowed - has splash damage - does more damage - saps terran scan energy if it's scanned - all that is ridiculous. but terran widow mines have all those abilities [as they also are a counter to overseers which zerg needs to even detect them].. there's a reason why top zerg players seldom use the HOTS units vs terran and terrans use the HOTS units very frequently vs zerg -- this is obvious and blizzard doesn't think there is a problem?
On February 13 2015 05:54 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is anyone else than me bothered by the fact the new "core gateway unit" sounds an awful lot like a blink stalker ?
It does seem like it, doesn't it? Hopefully they do something else besides delayed blink or there will be way too much overlap.
It's fascinating how much they're willing to torture themselves so Protoss doesn't get back the Dragoon
Dragoons would achieve what exactly?
They would allow the reorganization of the whole Protoss race without the major obstacles that are Sentries, the MSC, Immortals, Colossi and Warpgate in their current form
How? What is the difference between the stalker and a dragoon? Sure, the stats, but as concept? Why not make the stalker "better"? If you can find reasons why making the stalker better (ok maybe if you remove blink) you also state at the same time why dragoons wouldn't work. I maybe can see dragoons/better stalkers being usefull against zerg, but the whole warpgate thing doesn't really allow for it tbh. Other than that against terran they would be just as useless as stalkers are now as soon as terran gets stim and medivacs imo. As long as the pathing works as it does now you will always need strong aoe against terran
You could just have Dragoons be really beefy and come from Gateways instead of Warpgates
I love the idea of having the dragoon back and letting it come from the Gateway instead. This makes protoss macro more interesting. Let protoss be able to change back and forth between gateway and wg with some numbers tweaking the duration it takes to switch between them and cooldowns. That way protoss would possibly have a few WG for harassing with a Warp Prism or Pylons, but keep on making a stronger army back home.
And it gives a lot of diversity to any PvX matchup.
Stronger Gateway units for protoss is key in making their matchups more interesting.
Though I haven't read anything regarding initial worker count, I assume they are still going with that 12 worker idea :/
Removing the HERC is a good step, since the unit design seemed too overlapping and not really viable aside from specific push timings. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake they made with HotS by not giving Terran accomodation for the Warhound... And while you're at it, re-design this rolling litter bin!
Really happy they're trying out new things. Hopefully a beta comes out soon, so they can test new things quicker and gather more feedback. They really should invite a select number of people who are good at giving feedback for a closed alpha.
the new terran unit is going to be Warhound? Instead of herc? :D They should've been add Reaver for protoss and just delete the colosus, and probably add to protoss gateway army just standart dragoon
It's funny. Usually I shit all the time on Blizzard and other people are happy about their patches. This time I'm happy about the patch and people think Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing. XD
On February 13 2015 18:53 Creager wrote: Though I haven't read anything regarding initial worker count, I assume they are still going with that 12 worker idea :/
Removing the HERC is a good step, since the unit design seemed too overlapping and not really viable aside from specific push timings. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake they made with HotS by not giving Terran accomodation for the Warhound... And while you're at it, re-design this rolling litter bin!
While I'm mostly happy that the HERC is gone too, I'm still kinda sad to lose it for TvT. It was a fun bio unit that could be used to bust tank lines with that grappling ability, or at least force some friendly fire. It may have brought pure bio play back ! But I agree with you, I don't think it had any proper role in TvZ or TvP. So all in all, pretty happy it's gone.
I'm actually mostly satisfied with the changes announced. Blizzard doesn't seem afraid to go big on the changes, and that is good. They realized something had to be done on the economy side, and they are working on it (and I find their solution quite elegant and neat, can't wait to play test it). They also realized something was wrong with the warpins/gateways, they try stuff to change it. Now they realize something isn't right with fights that are over in 2 seconds, and they are looking into it. I'm not quite sure lowering the attack speed is the right way to do it and I would have preferred a damage reduction, but I trust them to make the right choice.
All in all, it shows that they're not afraid to make deep changes that will have huge ramifications and effects on how the game is played. And that's great news ! They really are willing to rework a lot of stuff in order to deeply improve the game. Now let's just give them time to figure stuff out before getting our pitchforks out ! :-)
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
Nope, I'm sure many Terrans didn't want that uninspired beefy melee unit that goes against the spirit of the faction (like the Hellbat) + emphasizes their MOBA conception of micro.
On February 13 2015 18:35 SuperHofmann wrote: I'm still wondering about turbo-medivacs with Siege Tanks and the possible abuses
Oh God, you reminded me that dropping Tanks in Siege Mode is still a thing. /:
On February 13 2015 17:16 Boricua wrote: That 72% of the poll "Opinion on the HERC removal?" are Z and P......
Nope, I'm sure many Terrans didn't want that uninspired beefy melee unit that goes against the spirit of the faction (like the Hellbat) + emphasizes their MOBA conception of micro.
They have to do it though. We have Wings of Liberty which is the vanilla each unit is pretty well balanced against each other. Then we have HotS where they've kind of forced a playstyle, saying we want action packed games, so we're buffing the units that allow for this. Medivac/Muta/Reaper/Warp Prism/introducing widowmine/introducing oracle. It's created a dynamic where these units are pretty much better than the rest. As for the Siege Tank, this means there's no place for it, so we're seeing that they're also increasing the power level of many other units to compensate and add more diversity, such as the Siege Tank. Like we'd never see Siege Tanks when Ravagers enter the field, without increasing the mobility of the Siege Tank.
On February 13 2015 18:35 SuperHofmann wrote: I'm still wondering about turbo-medivacs with Siege Tanks and the possible abuses
Oh God, you reminded me that dropping Tanks in Siege Mode is still a thing. /:
One of the most retarded thing still not removed...
"Hey let's take this unit that needs positioning and remove the _positioning_ bit".
The issue with both the Siege tank drop play and Warp-prism range dropplay is that it creates a cat-and-mouse effect. The defending player will constantly try and chase the harasser, but will never be able to catch him unless he build hardcounters (like Phoenix/mutalisks), which creates really boring interactions.
Compare this to Marine + Medivacs vs Mutalisks and you actually have an interesting interactions where Mutalisks can catch up to Medivacs, but the terran player can unload his Marines gradually while moving away and focus firing the Mutalisks. The zerg player can then counter-counter react to that by pulling back injured Mutalisks and sending in Lings first. So this harass-play adds to micro while the Warpprism + Siege tank is solely a cat-and-mouse interaction, and while it adds multitasking, it doesn't actually create any "real" small skirmishes, which is what SC2 needs.
On February 13 2015 19:45 ETisME wrote: Siege tank drop is not the same as bio drop, just look at tvt. It's most likely going to be used for timing attack and for occasion micro trick
On February 13 2015 19:45 ETisME wrote: Siege tank drop is not the same as bio drop, just look at tvt. It's most likely going to be used for timing attack and for occasion micro trick
I've played a few games on the LotV extension, and it seemed like a great harass option.
On February 13 2015 19:04 Yiome wrote: Attack speed change sounds interesting but I really don't want to see starcraft become more and more warcraft III style... And YAY for roach change :D
SC1BW was a bit slower than SC2, and a better game as result.
I don't like the Infestor -> Viper change for the mass air ability. Why give a ability that is supposed to counter mass air to an air unit that requires you to have air superiority to be used safely? It's nonsense >.>
edit : I dislike the new T unit too, looks like a Terran sentry. The new P unit is what they need but this Shade idea looks very strange for a "core gateway unit". Doesn't "core unit" means "without fancy ability especially useful to kill workers"? Tempest should be removed, not redesigned back to HotS specs. Roach burrow is good, everything that encourages us to make more roaches is good.
On February 13 2015 19:45 ETisME wrote: Siege tank drop is not the same as bio drop, just look at tvt. It's most likely going to be used for timing attack and for occasion micro trick
I've played a few games on the LotV extension, and it seemed like a great harass option.
Me too but I disagree. Its like playing with double colossus drop, it has way too high risk for what's it worth. Tank is a large part of your unit composition given the cost and the tech path, it's not disposable like a bio drop
On February 13 2015 19:45 ETisME wrote: Siege tank drop is not the same as bio drop, just look at tvt. It's most likely going to be used for timing attack and for occasion micro trick
I've played a few games on the LotV extension, and it seemed like a great harass option.
Me too but I disagree. Its like playing with double colossus drop, it has way too high risk for what's it worth. Tank is a large part of your unit composition given the cost and the tech path, it's not disposable like a bio drop
Hmm, so I think with the current Sc2-economy, siege tank drop play would be a big part of turtle mech as - when defeindg - some of your siege tanks will be redudant. This means you would be able to harass quite effectively with siege tanks while turtling with your main army if the economy wasn't changed.
However, with the new economy, you need to spread your self out faster, which makes each indiviudal siege tank more important. In that situation, I can see drop play + Siege Tanks being used for mobility purposes to go faster from one of your bases to another or for the extra micro during engagements, rather than for harass-play.
A simple approach for a protoss gateway unit would be to create another upgrade for the stalker.
Stalker gets a new damage upgrade on the twilight council. Takes them to a dragoon level of damage but they are still more fragile.
Adjust the research time or have it also require the dark shrine or templar archives as required so it is not available to early.
Then for a dark archon type unit.
'stasis field' similar to the arbiter ability from Bw. (does the oracle still get that stasis trap ability?)
'speed time' all units within a certain radius of the caster get an increase to movement speed.
A mind control ability is possible even if it only lasts a short time.
Then give it some version of the shade ability. Caster 'phases out' and becomes invulnerable, also makes them immune to emp. Maybe it turns into some kind of flying unit for the duration so it could follow blink stalkers around.
Imagine fully upgraded blink stalkers and a dark archon carrying out hit and run attacks. Higher damage and extra abilities to run away or delay any pursuers.
Protoss should feel more comfortable being out on the map constantly instead of sitting back and building up for one big engagement.
As someone who has tried to get back into sc2 (several times) after playing brood war, id say the biggest problem with sc2 is the pacing.
It goes from god awful slow to break-neck fast, and if you eff up in either of those two you lose automatically. brood war was fun because it was made to be played, not watched at grand finals.
I don't want Dragoon, Blink Stalkers requires more skill and creativity can make for cool scenarios. If there's Dragoons, this means there will be less Blink Stalkers.
The 40% reduction in attack speed is HUGE. I wonder how well it will go over in the pro scene if it will happen, changing the entire game and balance with this one change. Still, interesting that Blizz even considering this option.
We’re just not sure of this yet. For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat.
Blizzard talking out of their asses here. slower engagements gives everyone more time to micro, a good player will still have time to out-micro a lesser one
We’re just not sure of this yet. For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat.
Blizzard talking out of their asses here. slower engagements gives everyone more time to micro, a good player will still have time to out-micro a lesser one
Good luck killing banelings when marines shoot 40% slower.
We’re just not sure of this yet. For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat.
Blizzard talking out of their asses here. slower engagements gives everyone more time to micro, a good player will still have time to out-micro a lesser one
Good luck killing banelings when marines shoot 40% slower.
"with damage values adjusted accordingly"
Obviously the balance between units is going to go to whack because of this change, I can't even think about how good stalkers become with blink and this change
they're experimenting with the idea that engagements should be spread out over time instead of being one big explosion which is over in 10 seconds. i'm fine with this change, it's a good change
Hello everybody! Here's my opinions on the matter !
Firstly, props to Blizzard for being so active in communication. It's a fairly recent change and we have to express how much we appreciate them being more open !
Comments on the changes posted by Blizzard and possible alternatives: HERC was a nice unit idea. Sadly, it had two main problems. 1- A lack of a defined role. The HERC showed overlap with Hellbats (especially with Medivacs) in it's role in the game. It would do the same thing except without the Mechanical Tag. Whilst the ability looked cool, it was not different enough to differentiate itself enough. 2- It really didn't synergize with Bio well. HERC was an in-your-face unit, commiting itself by using the Grapple ability. Once you used Grapple, you are commited to fighting at that location. Couple this with Terran Bio being very weak to splash (Storm, Collosus, Fungal, Baneling, Disruptor, Ravager, Lurker, etc.) and you have an army on one hand that needs to kite and move around, and a unit that essentially yolo's into enemy forces.
When looking at the Terran race and what it needs to fill gaps, there's a couple of things that come to mind, especially when considering the new economy. The new economy will force more expanding, which forces races in one of two main playstyles: more defensive and cost-efficient, or more mobile and highly aggressive. Mech fills the first role decently, Bio fills the second. Protoss and more so Zerg both have their equivalents to the styles of play.
Given we'll see the Cyclone, Mech will have one of it's major weaknesses strenghtened, Mech can finally pose a threat on the map that isn't defended with static defense (read: not Hellions). Bio is certainly the more aggressive style. We need to make a decision here. Do we want Bio to be more aggressive and be forced into aggression OR do we want Bio to be capable of filling both roles (akin to BioTank in WOL) of defending and having the ability to move out and pressure on the map without being highly exploitable (this is what the Medivac + Tank change does!).
Terran doesn't have a major gap in it's playstyle, so I'd prefer seeing more changes to existing units rather than forcing an additional unit in there for the sake of having an additional unit. Examples include but are not limited to: the Reaper (upgrades for the WOL weaponset in midgame for an harrassing marauding squad / smoke bomb upgrade that denies vision of a location like the LOS-blockers do...), buffing the Siege Tank to deal much higher damage at the cost of attack speed or smart- targeting (this allows Mech to more easily secure locations that are more spread out without commiting too much supply, meanwhile, they are more exploitable with flanks and baiting shots, even introducing overkill), doing something to make the Ghost less of a niche unit (rebuff Snipe to deal 35~40 damage +10 Psionic so Snipe can actually be used to snipe, the current implementation is worthless) and preferably adding a third (fourth, if you count Nuke) ability like Lockdown or Irradiate, which are very Ghosty abilities to introduce into the game. Vikings could use some changes to make them more effective on the ground, please consider changing the animation so they land whilst moving, making landing a lot less clunky. Lastly, make Battlecruisers more threatening! They're fucking expensive, take a long time, and pretty damn underwhelming T_T
Thor Repair Removal is fine, it was a boring concept from start, so well... Something I thought of when thinking of the Thor is introducing a sort of skillshot like in the WOL campaign, but less powerful. Possibly make it's primary use a 2 second stun. Overall, I think reducing Thor size and making them faster and reducing the attack delay goes a long way into making them less of a clunky missfit of a unit. New Protoss Unit really feels like it'll end up like a Ground-Only Dragoon with Stalker teleportation skills. I'd prefer seeing the Stalker as more of a harrassment unit and introducing the Dragoon as a straight up combat unit (BETTER AI!). This should give Protoss the oomph it needs to expand faster and be less vulnerable to... well... anything. Make sure the Dragoon deals with Roaches really well! Gateway units is really one of the things Starbow nailed in my opinion. Most of what they have done is not my preference, but this is really something worth looking at!
Tempest suffers from a lack of role definition as well. The 500 damage/50 second DOT spell is silly, it's not the sort of thing we'd want to see in SC2. I've said before that turning the Tempest into a support unit rather than an attacking unit is an interesting option. The thing I had in mind is a mobile Repair Drone sort of attachment. As of now, Protoss is the only race incapable of fully healing it's army. Attaching 2 Repair Drones to the Tempest could relieve this. They should only come out when both units are out of combat. Additionally, you can give the Tempest access to a few Combat Spells (Oracle is the support caster/scout unit, Tempest will be the army support unit). Things like Statis Shield, Overload attack (I think Phoenix/Tempest had it in WOL/HOTS Alpha) to deal a high amount of damage at the cost of a cooldown. Keep it's improved mobility and give it an attack similar to HOTS (remove vs Massive) and reduce Range a bit. I don't know if this will actually work, I'm basically spouting ideas here. Tempest really suffers from a lack of definitive role as it's range really makes it a massive snowball unit.
Immortal Barrier/Hardened Shields changes are interesting. I'd prefer seeing them changed so Hardened Shields works differently. It reduces damage of 20 or less to 10, and halves damage higher than 20. They'll be less of a hardcounter to Siege Tanks and I think they'll work fine that way. TheDwf advocated this quite often.
Additionally, for Protoss, really consider changing Gateway Ranged Unit support to a more dedicated unit and make the Stalker more of a specialized unit. Make Movement a tad faster, lower damage, maybe keep their damage vs Air just as high... I really think this would help Gateway armies become strong enough to stand a chance when engaging on multiple fronts.
An important mention to make is that Gateways should have a benefit over Warpgates. Whilst nerfing Warp Gate Warp In currently is a fun solution, I'd prefer seeing Gateways have a certain advantage (especially defensive!!!) over Warpgates. Think of increasing Post WG research production time or weakening units that were warped in (0 shields at warp in, take higher damage for 20 seconds, whatever). Roach burrow movement at T1 might be too powerful, especially when coupled with Ravagers at T1. Whilst it might be problematic, I would like to see how it turns out!
Infestor is in an awkward place. AFAIK, Fungal/IT stay (they are fine spells now) but the third spell is problematic. I would love to see Dark Swarm (not gonna happen T__T) but a Bloodlust Spell could work as well (Prime candidates are units like the Ravager, Ultralisk, Brood Lord, SuperSwarm Host) that increase attack speed. I could also see Neural being redeveloped slightly. It's an interesting concept that hasn't received enough attention, IMO. General Attack Speed Decrease won't work without changing Movement speed as well. Whilst currently battles happen to fast, we need to take into account that economy is decelerated and battles will take place in multiple area's in LOTV, which automatically reduces the amount of participating units. I could see a general game speed reduction of 5%-10% have some interesting effects, but I agree, making the game too slow really changes the difference between pro and casual play in a negative way. ALSO, THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO SYNC GAME TIME WITH ACTUAL TIME!!! Timings will be thrown off anyways with the new economy and 12 worker openings, so this is a chance to change that weird time in game to reflect actual real world time without having any nasty side effects.
Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
Tempests solve the problem of mass Colossus in PvP and Broodlord-Infestor in PvZ. They try to make Tempests a less hard counter vs BC/Carrier/BL and more like specialist unit and that's the solution of the problem. Why they should remove them now?
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
Tempests solve the problem of mass Colossus in PvP and Broodlord-Infestor in PvZ. They try to make Tempests a less hard counter vs BC/Carrier/BL and more like specialist unit and that's the solution of the problem. Why they should remove them now?
Watch any PvX LotV showmatch and you will see the problem in action
I have an idea for Thor's self-repair ability. Maybe make it like repair Beasts had in Armies of Exigo. The way it worked was that while the building was being repaired, its total HP decreased. So let's say the Thor's life is at 200/400. After self-repair it would be 350/350. Additionally, Thor could get some extra armor while self-repairing.
Now the choices would be: do I (a) bring SCVs, (b) drop MULEs or (c) use self-repair (or (d) bring my Thor back to base). The advantage of (a) and (b) is that you can keep firing while repairing the Thor. The disadvantage is that it costs you resources. In case of (c) you can fix your Thor free of charge, but it cannot attack and you lose some total HP.
On February 13 2015 21:53 Incognoto wrote: they're experimenting with the idea that engagements should be spread out over time instead of being one big explosion which is over in 10 seconds. i'm fine with this change, it's a good change
Given Blizzard's track record, do you really want them to experiment with changing the pacing?
We'll just get a repeat of this where they did a few half-hearted experiments and then called it quits, or of the economy change where various people (LaLush, TheDwf) whose opinion matters don't seem to think it's that great.
Idk how so many people can be ignoring the huge issues with the immortal changes... other than that though everything looks quite good. I especially like the direction of slowing down fights. For whatever reason they say this limits skill... but in actuality, along with what they mention I assume was a note of Vibe, it makes the game MORE skilled. This is good with the addition of more units, faster expansions, and quicker engagements happening. You have to do a lot more over a longer period.
oh and edit: i am not sure how to feel about the tempest. i feel like it needs some type of damage bonus vs BL, but is too strong versus other things like colossus, carrier, MS, BC and so on. It's a weird and troubling issue they have to deal with ;~;
On February 13 2015 23:44 -Kyo- wrote: Idk how so many people can be ignoring the huge issues with the immortal changes... other than that though everything looks quite good. I especially like the direction of slowing down fights. For whatever reason they say this limits skill... but in actuality, along with what they mention I assume was a note of Vibe, it makes the game MORE skilled. This is good with the addition of more units, faster expansions, and quicker engagements happening. You have to do a lot more over a longer period.
oh and edit: i am not sure how to feel about the tempest. i feel like it needs some type of damage bonus vs BL, but is too strong versus other things like colossus, carrier, MS, BC and so on. It's a weird and troubling issue they have to deal with ;~;
How does this make the game more skilled? If you don't change anything else (means: you need your apm for other things), it just makes the fights slower. This doesn't add skill, it makes micro easier. People mention BW and it's somewhat slower pace, but you forget that BW required a lot more apm to begin with, it's only natural that it was slower, otherwise it wouldn't be playable.
The real "problem" with sc2 fights is the pathing. Units stay together and thus increase the dps per space to ridiculous amounts. That would be an issue blizzard should look into, not the attack rate of units -.-
Like someone wrote in the first page; LOTV = Wc4? This can be cool actually. I'm SO excited to try new things. This game has endless options to evolve into and the mainpoint for the crew is to make the game more micro-orientated.
Maybe this is an unjustified or legitimate idea - please correct me if so - but I have a potential solution to the shortness of battles. Blizzard tried decreasing attack speed, but that just made battles less exciting. People have suggested attack dmg nerfs or health buffs, but those dont necessarily solve the problem.
The way it seems to me, small battles are not the problem. Stalker vs reaper micro or pvp cheese battles are some of the most tense micro situations in HotS. The difficulty is deathball battles. Marines evaporate under colossus, marauders 1-shot stalkers, hydras die a lot.
What if multiple units attacking the same unit did not deal the sum of their damages? Then there is no reason to have 6 colossus attacking the same marines - 2 is enough. Then the focus becomes not simply "massing enough damage" to kill the other's deathball, but splitting your units into small groups, each attacking a different part of the enemy army. Then armies die slower when in large battles, but without affecting the balance of small battles.
I do not know whether an adjustment like this could be reliably coded, but I would be very interested in seeing what the effects would be. Would we be disincentivized from deathballs entirely, instead deciding to use small armies across the map. The change seems entirely in spirit with the changes of LotV.
How the change would scale per-unit would need to be tested - would it be logarithmic? Square-root? I do not know which implementation would be most balanced and entertaining.
TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
On February 14 2015 00:42 NaboliC wrote: Like someone wrote in the first page; LOTV = Wc4? This can be cool actually. I'm SO excited to try new things. This game has endless options to evolve into and the mainpoint for the crew is to make the game more micro-orientated.
For LotV to be WC4 there have to be soo many new things, just no. LotV is still a starcraft game, they're merely tweaking numbers here.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
On February 14 2015 01:04 Vexon wrote: TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
While a system like this would generally encourage splitting up armies, I don't see how this could properly presented to the player just because it is so technical. Also, it could force "un-fun" micro like constant retargeting of units.
What you could do is to approximate the effect by introducing more units with damage-over-time effects. That would largely solve the first problem I named, but retain the second one.
TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
There's mechanic that punishes units for shooting all attacks at one unit- Overkill. You can see it with units like Roaches and Marauders. Units that don't deal their damage instantly in their animation waste shots. it's not the same as your idea, but your idea would be pretty hard to observe and very clunky. Also, the micro it forces isn't cool or fun, it's more of a chore than anything.
On February 13 2015 05:41 Charoisaur wrote: the more i hear about lotv the less i like it. the worst designed unit in the game keeps its role and protoss gets another boring amove unit. Also it blows my mind they are considering taking the speed out of the game and turning the game into a boring settler/aoe type of game with slow boring combats. hopefully many people will keep playing hots so i don't have to quit sc2
Nobody will play HotS, might as well quit now.
People said same about WoL. Still there is over 20k playing WoL ladder.
On February 13 2015 23:44 -Kyo- wrote: Idk how so many people can be ignoring the huge issues with the immortal changes... other than that though everything looks quite good. I especially like the direction of slowing down fights. For whatever reason they say this limits skill... but in actuality, along with what they mention I assume was a note of Vibe, it makes the game MORE skilled. This is good with the addition of more units, faster expansions, and quicker engagements happening. You have to do a lot more over a longer period.
oh and edit: i am not sure how to feel about the tempest. i feel like it needs some type of damage bonus vs BL, but is too strong versus other things like colossus, carrier, MS, BC and so on. It's a weird and troubling issue they have to deal with ;~;
How does this make the game more skilled? If you don't change anything else (means: you need your apm for other things), it just makes the fights slower. This doesn't add skill, it makes micro easier. People mention BW and it's somewhat slower pace, but you forget that BW required a lot more apm to begin with, it's only natural that it was slower, otherwise it wouldn't be playable.
The real "problem" with sc2 fights is the pathing. Units stay together and thus increase the dps per space to ridiculous amounts. That would be an issue blizzard should look into, not the attack rate of units -.-
If by easier you mean it adds the ability to micro more units over a longer period of time while still having to simultaneously do everything you did before... then sure..?
This change makes it so that if you do not take the time to diligently micro in battles, where some previously ended so quickly the difference may have been negligible, while still macroing then the game make look entirely different.
For example: Making a blink stalker get to 1-2 hits instead of taking 1 hit on hull actually makes a significant difference in dps and longevity of the unit. Same with burrowed roaches and so on. Of course, if you're focusing on micro you have to remember that at top level players are still going to be macroing just as fast as they used to, and on top of that, there is now more options for harass with faster bases being taken.
So it adds very good dynamics that may not be apparent imo.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
This. REMOVE THE TEMPEST (and the swarm host).
That 3 expansions thing was doomed from start because Blizzard adamantly refuses to remove things that have been put into the live game. I was really happy when after HotS release, I read some interview stating that "[they] were already at a BW level number of units, and LotV could very well not add any unit". What a disappointment when LotV was announced. They add units over units, more and more complicated and less and less elegant over time, making this whole game a mess.
I'm damn sure WoL's set of units could have been reworked into something great, add or take one unit for each race. Really great. I'm not so sure about a set of units that contains tempest, swarm host, etc., and has so many units in it overlap or irrelevance is bound to happen.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
Out of curiosity, do you consider that Zerg units are fine right now design-wise?
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
Nope. That was my initial reaction to their Blizzcon presentation in which they showcased tons of half-assed stuff to begin with and then marked everything with "this is not final". Don't get me wrong, I'm still a blizzard fanboy. I like that they are doing the experimenting. I'm intrigued that they are sharing their unit design process with us. But from what I'm seeing, my hope is that the beta is not going to start in 2015 because they are still at the drawing desk. (Unless of course their beta is open end)
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
Nope. That was my initial reaction to their Blizzcon presentation in which they showcased tons of half-assed stuff to begin with and then marked everything with "this is not final". Don't get me wrong, I'm still a blizzard fanboy. I like that they are doing the experimenting. I'm intrigued that they are sharing their unit design process with us. But from what I'm seeing, my hope is that the beta is not going to start in 2015 because they are still at the drawing desk. (Unless of course their beta is open end)
I actually disagree. I hope the beta starts soon for that very reason : because they look so damn clueless. We need to try things, to see how they work out on a great scale. Just hearing them hesitating and randomly throwing out their shitty MOBA ideas is just depressing. Start the beta, try things, scrap what's bad/retarded, make the beta last a year if needed. But I don't trust their design team enough. Only community feedback is going to put them back on the right tracks, and that is only going to happen when beta starts. EDIT : that's probably what you meant with "Unless of course their beta is open end", in which case we actually agree
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
Nope. That was my initial reaction to their Blizzcon presentation in which they showcased tons of half-assed stuff to begin with and then marked everything with "this is not final". Don't get me wrong, I'm still a blizzard fanboy. I like that they are doing the experimenting. I'm intrigued that they are sharing their unit design process with us. But from what I'm seeing, my hope is that the beta is not going to start in 2015 because they are still at the drawing desk. (Unless of course their beta is open end)
I actually disagree. I hope the beta starts soon for that very reason : because they look so damn clueless. We need to try things, to see how they work out on a great scale. Just hearing them hesitating and randomly throwing out their shitty MOBA ideas is just depressing. Start the beta, try things, scrap what's bad/retarded, make the beta last a year if needed. But I don't trust their design team enough. Only community feedback is going to put them back on the right tracks, and that is only going to happen when beta starts. EDIT : that's probably what you meant with "Unless of course their beta is open end", in which case we actually agree
I am personally not optimistic about "community feedback" while they showed repeatedly, and just showed again with this new update on LotV, that they either don't give a shit about community feedback or are just plain bad at reading/hearing it.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
it's an expansion though, it is not a balance patch, games get different in expansions, not just balanced
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
Nope. That was my initial reaction to their Blizzcon presentation in which they showcased tons of half-assed stuff to begin with and then marked everything with "this is not final". Don't get me wrong, I'm still a blizzard fanboy. I like that they are doing the experimenting. I'm intrigued that they are sharing their unit design process with us. But from what I'm seeing, my hope is that the beta is not going to start in 2015 because they are still at the drawing desk. (Unless of course their beta is open end)
I actually disagree. I hope the beta starts soon for that very reason : because they look so damn clueless. We need to try things, to see how they work out on a great scale. Just hearing them hesitating and randomly throwing out their shitty MOBA ideas is just depressing. Start the beta, try things, scrap what's bad/retarded, make the beta last a year if needed. But I don't trust their design team enough. Only community feedback is going to put them back on the right tracks, and that is only going to happen when beta starts. EDIT : that's probably what you meant with "Unless of course their beta is open end", in which case we actually agree
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant with "open end beta". If they do the beta like you describe it, go for it asap. If beta means their WoL/HotS beta model with a release date more or less set in stone, then please keep it in alpha for as long as possible.
Considering how few things they currently have developed for the MP part of LotV I don't think that it will be released in 2015. The beta needs about 6 months for testing and fine-tuning, but the new units are not even ready for a beta. It looks like Blizzard dedicated a lot less resourecs to LotV than to WoL and HotS. Maybe they should consider creating a unit design contest where the community can apply with new ideas.
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
Nope. That was my initial reaction to their Blizzcon presentation in which they showcased tons of half-assed stuff to begin with and then marked everything with "this is not final". Don't get me wrong, I'm still a blizzard fanboy. I like that they are doing the experimenting. I'm intrigued that they are sharing their unit design process with us. But from what I'm seeing, my hope is that the beta is not going to start in 2015 because they are still at the drawing desk. (Unless of course their beta is open end)
I actually disagree. I hope the beta starts soon for that very reason : because they look so damn clueless. We need to try things, to see how they work out on a great scale. Just hearing them hesitating and randomly throwing out their shitty MOBA ideas is just depressing. Start the beta, try things, scrap what's bad/retarded, make the beta last a year if needed. But I don't trust their design team enough. Only community feedback is going to put them back on the right tracks, and that is only going to happen when beta starts. EDIT : that's probably what you meant with "Unless of course their beta is open end", in which case we actually agree
I am personally not optimistic about "community feedback" while they showed repeatedly, and just showed again with this new update on LotV, that they either don't give a shit about community feedback or are just plain bad at reading/hearing it.
We have to be optimistic : we won't get other guys in charge. But I'm pretty sure they could make LotV a great game if :
1) they swallow their pride and stop thinking everything that's currently in the game has its place. It's easier to make a good game out of a few elegant units than out of a lot of unnecessarily intricate ones.
2) they swallow their pride and stop trying to make SC2 look like a MOBA wannabe. This is the only current competitive representative of the RTS genre, stick to the fundamentals.
On February 14 2015 01:04 Vexon wrote: Maybe this is an unjustified or legitimate idea - please correct me if so - but I have a potential solution to the shortness of battles. Blizzard tried decreasing attack speed, but that just made battles less exciting. People have suggested attack dmg nerfs or health buffs, but those dont necessarily solve the problem.
The way it seems to me, small battles are not the problem. Stalker vs reaper micro or pvp cheese battles are some of the most tense micro situations in HotS. The difficulty is deathball battles. Marines evaporate under colossus, marauders 1-shot stalkers, hydras die a lot.
What if multiple units attacking the same unit did not deal the sum of their damages? Then there is no reason to have 6 colossus attacking the same marines - 2 is enough. Then the focus becomes not simply "massing enough damage" to kill the other's deathball, but splitting your units into small groups, each attacking a different part of the enemy army. Then armies die slower when in large battles, but without affecting the balance of small battles.
I do not know whether an adjustment like this could be reliably coded, but I would be very interested in seeing what the effects would be. Would we be disincentivized from deathballs entirely, instead deciding to use small armies across the map. The change seems entirely in spirit with the changes of LotV.
How the change would scale per-unit would need to be tested - would it be logarithmic? Square-root? I do not know which implementation would be most balanced and entertaining.
TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
You are basically asking for overkill.
Meaning units will spend more damage than necessary to kill a unit and it happens with stalkers, and hydras and other projectile based units already.
Anyone else ready for this message in a few months.
"Hi community, we thought the new protoss shade unit was really cool when we thought of it. But it doesn't work and has no point. So we are removing it and designing something else. We also realize that unseiging tanks took micro, so the medievac pickup is also out. Finally we are reverting all other changes back to HOTS except for lower mineral patches."
I think blizz is trying way too hard to be innovative with their unit design: too many spells, too many new powers. Here some simple ideas that could actually work: an aoe melee unit for P, a high hp shield/wall type unit for T, a drop-ship unit for z. And here is my money suggestion (!), a unit that can lift up buildings. It would help with all-ins, mess with production in mid-game, help clear out spine/fields and such late game. Damn its so genius.
On February 14 2015 01:04 Vexon wrote: Maybe this is an unjustified or legitimate idea - please correct me if so - but I have a potential solution to the shortness of battles. Blizzard tried decreasing attack speed, but that just made battles less exciting. People have suggested attack dmg nerfs or health buffs, but those dont necessarily solve the problem.
The way it seems to me, small battles are not the problem. Stalker vs reaper micro or pvp cheese battles are some of the most tense micro situations in HotS. The difficulty is deathball battles. Marines evaporate under colossus, marauders 1-shot stalkers, hydras die a lot.
What if multiple units attacking the same unit did not deal the sum of their damages? Then there is no reason to have 6 colossus attacking the same marines - 2 is enough. Then the focus becomes not simply "massing enough damage" to kill the other's deathball, but splitting your units into small groups, each attacking a different part of the enemy army. Then armies die slower when in large battles, but without affecting the balance of small battles.
I do not know whether an adjustment like this could be reliably coded, but I would be very interested in seeing what the effects would be. Would we be disincentivized from deathballs entirely, instead deciding to use small armies across the map. The change seems entirely in spirit with the changes of LotV.
How the change would scale per-unit would need to be tested - would it be logarithmic? Square-root? I do not know which implementation would be most balanced and entertaining.
TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
You are basically asking for overkill.
Meaning units will spend more damage than necessary to kill a unit and it happens with stalkers, and hydras and other projectile based units already.
Applying overkill to more units might help.
I think this is a great idea that can introduce more skill and micro into the game without slowing down everything else. IRC there was overkill for quite a few units in BW that made it necessary to try to target clumps and individual units rather than relying on auto attack. Adding this in would make so many units take more skill to use (collo, tanks, banelings), to compensate might have to buff their attack damage in some way.
TBH i agree with everyone that blizzard sounds like they're half-assing it and started development on LotV multiplayer way too late ... the only notable change was the economy change, everything else was like 'hey i got a random unit idea lets try it .. oh no that didnt work lets try another random unit'.
On February 14 2015 01:04 Vexon wrote: Maybe this is an unjustified or legitimate idea - please correct me if so - but I have a potential solution to the shortness of battles. Blizzard tried decreasing attack speed, but that just made battles less exciting. People have suggested attack dmg nerfs or health buffs, but those dont necessarily solve the problem.
The way it seems to me, small battles are not the problem. Stalker vs reaper micro or pvp cheese battles are some of the most tense micro situations in HotS. The difficulty is deathball battles. Marines evaporate under colossus, marauders 1-shot stalkers, hydras die a lot.
What if multiple units attacking the same unit did not deal the sum of their damages? Then there is no reason to have 6 colossus attacking the same marines - 2 is enough. Then the focus becomes not simply "massing enough damage" to kill the other's deathball, but splitting your units into small groups, each attacking a different part of the enemy army. Then armies die slower when in large battles, but without affecting the balance of small battles.
I do not know whether an adjustment like this could be reliably coded, but I would be very interested in seeing what the effects would be. Would we be disincentivized from deathballs entirely, instead deciding to use small armies across the map. The change seems entirely in spirit with the changes of LotV.
How the change would scale per-unit would need to be tested - would it be logarithmic? Square-root? I do not know which implementation would be most balanced and entertaining.
TL;DR I would like some feedback on this idea: What if damage from multiple attacking units didnt stack fully? Example: If one unit deals 6 damage, what if 2 attacking at once deals 9-10 instead of 12, and 3 would deal 12-13 instead of 18. This would make small battles more entertaining, and make armies more "tanky" in deathball battles.
You are basically asking for overkill.
Meaning units will spend more damage than necessary to kill a unit and it happens with stalkers, and hydras and other projectile based units already.
Applying overkill to more units might help.
I think this is a great idea that can introduce more skill and micro into the game without slowing down everything else. IRC there was overkill for quite a few units in BW that made it necessary to try to target clumps and individual units rather than relying on auto attack. Adding this in would make so many units take more skill to use (collo, tanks, banelings), to compensate might have to buff their attack damage in some way.
TBH i agree with everyone that blizzard sounds like they're half-assing it and started development on LotV multiplayer way too late ... the only notable change was the economy change, everything else was like 'hey i got a random unit idea lets try it .. oh no that didnt work lets try another random unit'.
they aren't half assing it.
Lets be honest: its an expansion not a new game. IDK what else they are supposed to do scrap every protoss, terran and zerg unit and start over?
Also its not like LotV is coming out next week. If it was then maybe you could claim they didnt spend time on it but I think they are just trying to be more open, like we've all been asking for forever, and instead of "great more insight into development and community interaction!" some people decide "what half assed work its nowhere near ready and its almost done!?!?!"
I guess people just want to hate on blizz and not focus on any positive stuff at all.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
Out of curiosity, do you consider that Zerg units are fine right now design-wise?
I would prefer if Roaches and Hydralisks were reworked around a 1 supply variant, and Ultralisks desperately need some kind of finesse. I also think the Viper should get something else instead of Abduct. For the rest, they're changing or trying stuff for Corruptors, Infestors and Swarm hosts, + Lurkers and Ravagers sound like solid additions, so the Zerg building site seems more advanced.
Overall I agree with all the changes they've made except for the Tempest, I actually thought the initial proposed changes seemed really cool and different. Maybe keep moving towards making it a real full on flying support unit. Toss has none of these, zerg has viper, terran has raven... why not give toss a medium speed flying support unit as well? A DoT ability sounds awesome for toss. And doesn't making it only hit ground and do bonus vs massive ground fix all the problems I'm seeing ppl having with it in this thread that it rolls over BL/BC/Carriers?? Lower the dmg and increase the speed and atk speed so its not a slug pace.
As far as the attk speed decrease.... I think it's at least moving in the right direction.... maybe not 40% but 30 or 25 would be better. Just please do as much as you can to raise the relation of micro to skill. I wanna be able to micro my units during battle and right now thats very hard to do... maybe reducing movement speed across the board... especially for fast units like muta, ling, stimmed bio, oracle, hellions etc. I ALWAYS thought stimmed bio and mutas and even hellion to a lesser extent, especially were wayyyy too fast going back to WoL and now oracle/boost medivacs too in hots in the sense that you barely had time to react compared to the amount of game ending damage done. Someone else mentioned something similar in this thread already about the speed of muta, ling, and boost medivacs and it really got me thinking about what bothered me most about the game from the first times I played WoL and it only got worse with boost medivacs and oracles. PLEASE move away from this and towards a game that doesnt live or die by one stim or one muta flock flying into your main... or even one oracle catching you.
This better not turn into HOTS all over again: Meaning, the difference between WoL and HOTS is negligible. Blizzad hyped everyone for HOTS new units, specifically Terran, then just removed them or significantly nerfed them prior to release. To this day I am disappointed with what Terran was given in HOTS: Terran was given no new T3 unit and no out-of-the-box thinking was involved during development such as the Widow Mine (aka the spider mine). I'd rather have a completely imba release with new, fun units (which can be reworked) than the same crap again. This speaks for all races.
On February 13 2015 22:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: Protoss doesn't need a new unit. And remove the Tempest please. It's a badly designed unit that has no place and makes all 3 capital ships not viable. Instead of trying to re-purpose it just take it out.
yeah just don't give protoss anything new and even remove their units, will make this dying game much more interesting
Adding units ≠ making things better or more interesting Removing units ≠ making things worse or more boring
The important is reworking what exists. Among the Terran and Protoss ranks there are several candidates for that.
As for Tempests, it was a typical addition for the sake of addition because they refused to address the state of the Carrier in the first place. LotV is the perfect opportunity for that.
Out of curiosity, do you consider that Zerg units are fine right now design-wise?
I would prefer if Roaches and Hydralisks were reworked around a 1 supply variant, and Ultralisks desperately need some kind of finesse. I also think the Viper should get something else instead of Abduct. For the rest, they're changing or trying stuff for Corruptors, Infestors and Swarm hosts, + Lurkers and Ravagers sound like solid additions, so the Zerg building site seems more advanced.
All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
Scepticism ≠ hate
We've already heard countless promises over the years. Feel free to be hyper enthusiastic but don't insult people who are legitimately distrustful about Blizzard finally doing wonders and miracles after 5 years of mayhem...
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
On February 14 2015 02:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty half-assed of Blizzard to still be ironing out ideas for Legacy of the Void?
How long has it been since HotS? Why does Blizzard still sound so clueless? How is this not going to be a shitty expansion?
So many questions and so little confidence in Blizzard right now... For fuck's sake!
WoL was out for almost 3 years. Almost 3 years since Hots's release would be late 2015/early 2016. Also the beta came about 6 months earlier, which is in line with blizzard claiming they plan on launching LotV beta during this summer.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
For all we know -the ones, who, unlike you if I'm to believe your last sentence, still play this game-, none of the issues is solved. They've been making announcements saying they would make the game more action packed/dynamic/interesting forever. And yet all I see is they gave medivacs speed and muta regen + speed buff, forcing mothership core and stale gameplay. After the masterpiece that was HotS, we HAVE to be wary. Be an enthusiastic yes-man if you want, but don't call cautious people who actually care for the game and raise important issues toxic haters for Christ's sake.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
SC2 needs to slow down, not fasten up.
But man, don't you understand? If you slow the game down it reduces the skill level. Blizzard knows and Blizzard said that.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
SC2 needs to slow down, not fasten up.
But man, don't you understand? If you slow the game down it reduces the skill level. Blizzard knows and Blizzard said that.
The marine has ~260% more damage per resource. The roach has ~160% more HP per resource.
The roach vs roach combat is much, much, much, much (it's hard to actually describe with words how much!) slower than the marine vs marine combat. People still don't micro more in roach vs roach than in marine vs marine. Nor do they micro more in roach vs marauder than marine vs marauder. It is rather that in roach vs marauder, the amount of micro actions/second is much less than the amount of micro actions/second in marine vs marauder. In both instances player wants to micro forward to catch up with the 6marauder range. In both instances, once you have everything in range the amount of micro decreases to a little bit of target fireing once you have all your stuff in range. In the marine vs marauder example, all of that happens quicker, the micro actions are closer together in time than in roach vs marauder. In roach vs marauder, there is a lot of time in between the one targetfire and the next because marauders die slower to roaches than marines.
Now of course, if there is combat lengthening stuff involved (blink), it becomes significant whether you can dps your opponent down faster, or if more cooldown periods are involved. It makes the blinks much easier against roaches than against marines in bigger combats. But that is not a question of the pace of combats in general, but about the specific unit interactions. Say, we go with the 40% that blizzard had tested. Now blink stalkers are much better against marines, because they can blink more often. This imposes a balance problem that needs to be solved in one of two ways: marines also need to be more durable against stalkers. Or marines need more damage output against stalkers to make up for it. The first one just means that the protoss player now blinks more, but the terran player doesn't really micro more because of that. The battle is just longer for no real reason. The second one just restores the status quo. The only interesting solution would be if now instead of just counterbuffing marines or counternerfing stalkers, marines would get a cool micro trick of their own that the player can perform in the extra time and that makes up for the extra blink power. Again, we are back to creating interesting micro-intense unit relations to begin with. The slow down of the combats in general is not necessary for that. It might be interesting for the marine vs stalker example to make room for more micro tricks, but for the roach vs stalker example on the other hand which is already an incredibely slooooooooow combat, one could just start out by introducing more ways to use the time for micro. Or intensifying the micro by speeding up the combat in that particular scenario. It is all about the specific combat interaction we are talking about!
Now the argument that gets most brought up in that context is deathballs evaporating other deathballs. Seeing how very low-dps/high HP Protoss deathballs + Show Spoiler +
yes they are low dps, just check the dps values of those units. Like 80%+ of the units in the typical Protoss deathball are basic gateway units with some of the highest health/res and lowest dps/res values in the game
win games rather quickly, I don't believe that making all armies behave like that would do any good for making battles more interesting. If you actually watch a deciding combat, many players will type out before their units are even killed. Why? Because it doesn't matter if the combat is long or short, there is a critical value of units that if you drop under it, you know you are going to lose sooner or later and you tab out. Whether this is sooner or later does not influence the outcome of the battle.
Another thing that it does influence is that replenishing units during a battle becomes much stronger. You introduce more of the "Swarm Host-syndrom" into all battles, which means stuff dies, but not a lot of stuff and you have a much harder time actually breaking through your opponent, because 40% longer battles also means 40% faster reinforcements. And while you have been slowly killing units, he has also been rebuilding them (faster than right now relatively speaking), which means ultimately the strategies become more about mining the map more than your opponent, instead of actually trying to kill his bases.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
SC2 needs to slow down, not fasten up.
But man, don't you understand? If you slow the game down it reduces the skill level. Blizzard knows and Blizzard said that.
I think it's important to differentiate between various types of "speed". Does it come from a reduction in damage values only? If so, battles will indeed be longer and there will be more opportunities for micro. If it comes from a reduction in movement speed, micro will generally be less rewarded during engagements as it for instance isn't efficient to pull back targetted units (assuming damage values are unchanged). If it's due to a change in attack speed, it will reduce the APM-requirement for kiting/stutter-stepping, but also increase the lenght of engagements.
If every "speed-related" variable (attack speed and movement speed) is reduced by X%, then it doesn't change the reward of microing the units. Your still rewarded for doing the same type of micro, and PvP deathball engagements won't be more microintensive with this change. Instead, the microless engagements will just take longer. And in the engagements wiht lots of micro (such as bio vs zerg), players will have more time to execute the same type of micro. This is actually equal to a reduction in skill-cap since a high (mechanical) skillcap comes from the aiblity to make the most amount of efficient actions in the least amount of time.
As an extreme example to make this point obvious, imagine that you have 10 seconds to split 5 Marines. That's pretty easy right? On the other hand, if you only have 1 second to split each Marine indiviudally, then it's a ton harder, and it will be easier to seperate those who are really good from those who are subpar.
Therefore my recommendation is to leave attack-speed unchanged, but in some situations movement speed can be increased while damage values can be reduced in order to increase the duration of engagements.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
SC2 needs to slow down, not fasten up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Browder now out from SC2 development? If he is, that's reason to be optimistic that it's gonna be different this time around.
I think he was the reason they've taken such a conservative approach in the past. They thought the game could be made substantially different by just adding/tweaking units. Now they're actually exploring with making changes to fundamental game mechanics.
I had know idea! Turns out think this could be a really cool change. Also, can Blizzard pplleeaase bring back the Reaver :D. I'd rather have the reaver than some (big-ass target) collosus!
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: 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.
[/QUOTE]
Soooo, you want to add a bit of strategy into your strategy game? Blasphemous!
Afraid that it reduces skill level because you don't have to click 1000 things at once in order to be good making it accessible to people who aren't Korean? How dare they!?
Seriously, though... They should do this. We don't need faster paced games that are 10 minutes of build up that are over in 30 seconds. I get what they're trying to do and make it so its micro intensive all over the map but you also have to make the game fun for normal people to play as well. I'm not a pro nor will I ever be one, having more abilities to micro at faster speeds does not appeal to me as much as being able to actually control engagements because my units won't die in the blink of an eye.
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
That's how we ended up with mutas being crap when below 12 but stupid good in huge flocks, speed medivacs, all protoss all-ins relying on warp-in, maxed supply battles lasting 5 seconds and basetrade being a viable strategy in certain matchups.
SC2 needs to slow down, not fasten up.
But man, don't you understand? If you slow the game down it reduces the skill level. Blizzard knows and Blizzard said that.
I think it's important to differentiate between various types of "speed". Does it come from a reduction in damage values only? If so, battles will indeed be longer and there will be more opportunities for micro. If it comes from a reduction in movement speed, micro will generally be less rewarded during engagements as it for instance isn't efficient to pull back targetted units (assuming damage values are unchanged). If it's due to a change in attack speed, it will reduce the APM-requirement for kiting/stutter-stepping, but also increase the lenght of engagements.
If every "speed-related" variable (attack speed and movement speed) is reduced by X%, then it doesn't change the reward of microing the units. Your still rewarded for doing the same type of micro, and PvP deathball engagements won't be more microintensive with this change. Instead, the microless engagements will just take longer. And in the engagements wiht lots of micro (such as bio vs zerg), players will have more time to execute the same type of micro. This is actually equal to a reduction in skill-cap since a high (mechanical) skillcap comes from the aiblity to make the most amount of efficient actions in the least amount of time.
As an extreme example to make this point obvious, imagine that you have 10 seconds to split 5 Marines. That's pretty easy right? On the other hand, if you only have 1 second to split each Marine indiviudally, then it's a ton harder, and it will be easier to seperate those who are really good from those who are subpar.
Therefore my recommendation is to leave attack-speed unchanged, but in some situations movement speed can be increased while damage values can be reduced in order to increase the duration of engagements.
Well, really there are a lot of speed variables that are relevant when discussing game balance. There are in-game ones like movement speed, attack speed, various cooldowns and duration. There are also meta-variables, like reaction lag (reflexes) and apm that need to be taken into account. In an earlier example: slowing down the game is a nerf for reapers trying to snipe workers because the defending player has more time to react and pull back the workers. Perhaps it would be similar for banshee vs worker interaction if only banshees would three-shot workers, instead of the two-shot which can't be microed against.
There are some micro interactions where slow down is very beneficial. Imagine an idealized version of the marine vs baneling interaction where it's perpetually worthwhile to spread and kite with your marines, meaning that if you slow down the game by half you've actually created twice as much time during which you can micro your units, sort of doubling the micro potential of the engagement. I think that's why WC3 micro can be very micro intensive despite its lengthy engagements, because there are always ways to contribute during a fight (focus fire, pulling back units, abilities, unit formations, kiting, surrounding, blocking, items).
If you increase the army size enough it starts to become very difficult to design micro interactions that are not dependent on initial positioning. Virtually every single micro trick I mentioned in the previous paragraph becomes contrived already at large army sizes in Warcraft 3 and would be completely degenerate in Starcraft 2 (see Big J's example of roach vs roach), simply because unit numbers are too high for focus firing and such to truly stand out. It's not necessarily impossible to create these sort of continuous micro interactions in SC2, but you probably can't achieve full coverage for every battle with every composition (something which is trivial in WC3). And it's not clear that it's desirable to lose your dependence on initial positioning, because that might just be a fact of the genre / scale of the game.
I think the SC2 pathfinding doesn't help in the quest for slower pace, since that speeds up (and in some way trivializes) the initial positioning phase a lot. At that point if you change the stats of the game so that attack speeds are lower you just get battles where all units are comfortably in arcs firing at each other and the most meaningful micro (which is positioning based) is now relatively less important.
Also, I recall this being a debate in Planetary Annihilation: units there die incredibly quickly and it was said that this made positioning more important, which was desirable for a strategy game, and that the alternative, with units having more health, would not be desirable since that would simply promote rote micro actions, especially given the scale of the game. But I think they went overboard with this concept since a lot of players said something like: "well, okay, but at least double the hp of all the units".
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
For all we know -the ones, who, unlike you if I'm to believe your last sentence, still play this game-, none of the issues is solved. They've been making announcements saying they would make the game more action packed/dynamic/interesting forever. And yet all I see is they gave medivacs speed and muta regen + speed buff, forcing mothership core and stale gameplay. After the masterpiece that was HotS, we HAVE to be wary. Be an enthusiastic yes-man if you want, but don't call cautious people who actually care for the game and raise important issues toxic haters for Christ's sake.
I meant that I might actually participate in a beta for once. I currently play hots. Not a ton, but I'm diamond on the ladder this season (and every damn season).
I think it's silly how entitled you people are. You act like Starcraft isn't the best RTS ever made already, and having spent $80 bucks on the game you think that they need to work for you for the rest of the game's lifespan.
If the game and the company who makes it are so horrible, I stand by by original statement, go play something else.
On February 13 2015 05:23 The_Templar wrote: 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.
Soooo, you want to add a bit of strategy into your strategy game? Blasphemous!
Afraid that it reduces skill level because you don't have to click 1000 things at once in order to be good making it accessible to people who aren't Korean? How dare they!?
Seriously, though... They should do this. We don't need faster paced games that are 10 minutes of build up that are over in 30 seconds. I get what they're trying to do and make it so its micro intensive all over the map but you also have to make the game fun for normal people to play as well. I'm not a pro nor will I ever be one, having more abilities to micro at faster speeds does not appeal to me as much as being able to actually control engagements because my units won't die in the blink of an eye.
Normal people can have fun playing the game as it is right now. Slow games are boring to watch and play. Try it yourself out with a friend. Custom game on normal speed. Really boring. Part of the appeal SC2 has for me is that it actually requires skill. I am an avid gamer and most games nowadays are way to easy and you can master it in an hour. With SC you always learn. Sure the beginning is hard but when you get more and more into it is insaley awesome.
Trying out new builds you see the pros do. Do some stupid shit yourself. And imo the feeling when you win a hard fought game is way sweeter in SC2 than in any other game I have played before.
Ok that kinda went off topic. To conclude my rambling I do not want the game to be slower. There is no reason whatsoever to make the game easier
On February 14 2015 04:27 TronJovolta wrote: All you toxic haters go play a different game, jesus christ. How is this now incredibly exciting news, these last few updates? The game is going to become even more action packed, fun, and spectatable. Not only that, but they're even addressing the army evaporation issue.
I'm so freaking happy. Cannot wait for beta, I might actually really play it.
For all we know -the ones, who, unlike you if I'm to believe your last sentence, still play this game-, none of the issues is solved. They've been making announcements saying they would make the game more action packed/dynamic/interesting forever. And yet all I see is they gave medivacs speed and muta regen + speed buff, forcing mothership core and stale gameplay. After the masterpiece that was HotS, we HAVE to be wary. Be an enthusiastic yes-man if you want, but don't call cautious people who actually care for the game and raise important issues toxic haters for Christ's sake.
I meant that I might actually participate in a beta for once. I currently play hots. Not a ton, but I'm diamond on the ladder this season (and every damn season).
I think it's silly how entitled you people are. You act like Starcraft isn't the best RTS ever made already, and having spent $80 bucks on the game you think that they need to work for you for the rest of the game's lifespan.
If the game and the company who makes it are so horrible, I stand by by original statement, go play something else.
Everyone wants the game to be the best possible game it could be, with the quality and longevity of BW. The benchmark for SC2 is very, very high, for a number of reasons. So people get concerned when it appears the developers aren't going to put in the effort to make what was touted as (and has potential to be) the best RTS of all time. There are a number of issues that have been around since the inception of the game that haven't really been addressed, and it gets a little frustrating imagining how much better the game could be. Nobody is posting on TL because they think the game is terrible: people post because they love the game but think that it's not living up to its potential.
Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard to actually improve the game, and not just playing around with cool unit designs. I like most of the changes in the OP, including slowing down the combat - but just a bit. I remember Flash saying in an interview that controlling SC2 was more challenging than BW because of the speed of battles. If it is difficult for Flash, mere humans like the rest of the world will surely benefit from a SMALL slow-down in the attack speed and/or DPS.
Please please please also focus on giving the game more viable strategies / unit compositions / gamestyles, most of the posts I see here focus more on the RT part than in the S part of our RTS game. For me BOTH are important, it is just that often the audience is more capable of wondering about a cool micro trick than about a brilliant counter-strategy after a partial scout. In the altar of balance, many cool strategies were sacrificed in several previous patches. Now HotS is 2% more balanced, and 20% less funny.
Here are my (crazy?) comments and suggestions:
Terran I've just read 20 pages of comments and have not seen more than one suggestion for a new unit. For me it should be a T2 unit that helps you transition out of bio play. A unit that synergizes better with positional mech play than with mobile bio play: ranged, not stimmable, not droppable, not as fast as stimmed bio, but with good DPS, health and speed, so that can it be part of your core army in both bio and mech compositions. It could have an ability that, when casted, gives a target mech unit an advantage, like more armor (reducing the effectiveness of enemy T1 units).
Other: Reduce the health of the marauder, make medevac boost consume energy, increase health of banshee.
Protoss A new gateway unit is a good idea, I suggest a T2 that comes out with the Twilight, which currently does not enable any new unit. The goal of the unit would be to help bridge the gap to T3 AoE. I know Blizzard likes the small imbalances between races as the game evolves, but it is ridiculous that P needs always to race to T3 to deal with mass small units. A non-mechanical high-armor (2?) unit with good life, double? ranged attack, no overkill. Perhaps with an ability that, when casted on a building or unit, refills shields and/or mana.
Other: Make FF have hit points so that they are destroyable - but stackable. No abilities in non-T3 units to immediately destroy FF.
Zerg I like its current design in LotV. They need more micro-able units and that's been addressed. Just reduce the Queen's range... ;-)
Overall Workers should have more DPS! Their attack ability does not have any influence in the game right now. Make them be the last line of defense against harassment or all-ins, at the cost of economy.
On February 14 2015 09:45 Xamo wrote: Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard to actually improve the game, and not just playing around with cool unit designs. I like most of the changes in the OP, including slowing down the combat - but just a bit. I remember Flash saying in an interview that controlling SC2 was more challenging than BW because of the speed of battles. If it is difficult for Flash, mere humans like the rest of the world will surely benefit from a SMALL slow-down in the attack speed and/or DPS.
On February 14 2015 09:45 Xamo wrote: Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard to actually improve the game
On February 14 2015 09:45 Xamo wrote: Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard
Nice joke dude. It's been 5 years and Blizzard still has no idea how to make mech work for Terran and to make Protoss more proactive without having to resort to 200/200.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
If you really want to bait it: Blizzard doesn't need to do anything. Blizzard doesn't need to have 3 viable races. If you want to play competitively, just pick the one that is overpowered. But if blizzard is clever, they will try to give the players reasons to buy and play the game*. And making Mech viable vs Protoss has been at the top of the list of community feedback since mid-WoL. And they aren't dumb, that's why they promised to make it viable in HotS in one form or another. Just that they didn't/couldn't hold that promise. They have another chance with LotV, they'd be pretty dumb if they didn't at least try. (and well, what they are doing seems promising. Giving Mech a Marine and changing Immortals amongst other tweaks like Banshee/BC/Siege Tank buffs)
*and before some kiddo comes in yelling that playing the game isn't necessary, "people just have to buy it". Just no. It's called branding. It's called good publicity. It's called customer service. It's called building/holding/extending a customer base. It's called standing at the frontline of the cash cow that is esports. A good product is worth much more than the customer pays for it.
i would like a visual fix in the protoss army. when they have sentrys, colossi and voids ... honestly its too much lazers for a human eye to see.... i hope they can do something about it
I like the Shade unit, it's like a manual Blink stalker.
Maybe redesign Blink so it's like this? Let's say you can rally your shade to a location, cast it, and then it'll move at speed 6 and after 1 second (or more, depending on if we want to buff) your stalker will teleport there. That way we can buff blink for positional engagements, but you can't rush it in PvT and then use MSC to all-in the Terran. Or you could, but you'd have to go in through the ramp.
On February 14 2015 15:53 pmp10 wrote: I'd be a lot happier about HERC removal if I thought Blizzard could come up with a better idea. But when it comes to terran I'm not optimistic.
wouldnt be surprised if they take the lazy route and just put back in something from Sc1 like the science vessel
On February 13 2015 05:51 HewTheTitan wrote: How about this for a new terran upgrade:
Riot Gear
upgrades SCVs with stun batons and helmets, preparing them for the front lines
Oh shit, Militia rush in starcraft.
Nah, it just becomes "the tech to unit" for SCV allins in TvP...
upgrade herv transformation so that scvs can transform to hercs and back so that you can pull them if you need them for a finishing move, maybe that would give t more options.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
On February 13 2015 05:51 HewTheTitan wrote: How about this for a new terran upgrade:
Riot Gear
upgrades SCVs with stun batons and helmets, preparing them for the front lines
Oh shit, Militia rush in starcraft.
Nah, it just becomes "the tech to unit" for SCV allins in TvP...
upgrade herv transformation so that scvs can transform to hercs and back so that you can pull them if you need them for a finishing move, maybe that would give t more options.
You do realise that that would be like the most op shit ever in any game known to man.
There are some micro interactions where slow down is very beneficial. Imagine an idealized version of the marine vs baneling interaction where it's perpetually worthwhile to spread and kite with your marines, meaning that if you slow down the game by half you've actually created twice as much time during which you can micro your units, sort of doubling the micro potential of the engagement
I know what you mean, but according to my definition of skillcap - where higher skilled players can be easily differentiated from less skilled players - it will be reduced here. The reason is that in a lot of engagements, the microskillcap isn't infinitive. There comes a point in time - especially when you play toss - where the reward of additional actions isn't very high/almost nonexistant.
Vs Banelings, it's alot more valuable to split them than kite with them, and therefore terran players priortize doing the former. If the speed of the game was reduced so much so that every single diamond player could split his Marines almost perfectly, and then the only differentiating factor would be whether you could kite with them as well, the skill-cap would be reduced as the latter is less valuable. That said, Marines vs Banelings is definitely the scenario with the highest microskillcap, and thus the effect of a change in attack-speed will have the least impact on Marines vs Banelings.
But in other micro-interactions, it will be really bad as the "valuable" microskillcap is reached significantly faster, and therefore the factors differenating the best players in the world will be even less related to micro than what it is now. Reducing the speed of engagements therefore only makes sense when the skillcap is basically infinitive. Otherwise it will result in a reduction in the skillcap.
If you increase the army size enough it starts to become very difficult to design micro interactions that are not dependent on initial positioning. Virtually every single micro trick I mentioned in the previous paragraph becomes contrived already at large army sizes in Warcraft 3 and would be completely degenerate in Starcraft 2 (see Big J's example of roach vs roach), simply because unit numbers are too high for focus firing and such to truly stand out.
The armysize is one variable here, but other variables such as the responsiveness, movement speed and attack-range are relevant as well in the determination of whether micro is rewarded or not. If you reduce every speed-variable by X%, then it doesn't change the fact that big Roach wars will continue to be microless.
I have for a while advocated a significant increase in the movement speed of Roaches and a removal of the unburrow/burrow delay of Roaches in order to increase the reward of micro (instead it's damage values can be reduced a bit to balance it).
If we look at the Immortal, I would love to see this with 2.75 movement speed, 0 damage point and 7-8 range. It would then be rewarded to target fire enemy units during an engagement, and it would also be possible to pull it back if it was target-fired by the enemy. With these changes, warp-prism also doesn't need any pickuprange and the Immortal doesn't need any extra weird abilities.
Also, I recall this being a debate in Planetary Annihilation: units there die incredibly quickly and it was said that this made positioning more important, which was desirable for a strategy game, and that the alternative, with units having more health, would not be desirable since that would simply promote rote micro actions, especially given the scale of the game. But I think they went overboard with this concept since a lot of players said something like: "well, okay, but at least double the hp of all the units".
So just two clarify two things here.
(1) Assuming no special abilities exist, the general reward of micro depends on this ratio: DPS/(Movement speed + responsiveness) of units. If movement speed is low but damage values is high, you almost only wanna amove during the engagement. Therefore, it's important to not talk about the damage values in a vacuum, but it must be done in a relation to the speed of the units.
(2) If you speed up both attack speed (DPS) and movement speed, the skillcap is increased as long as long as there is a declining value of each additional action that the players can perform during an engagement.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
On February 14 2015 09:45 Xamo wrote: Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard to actually improve the game, and not just playing around with cool unit designs. I like most of the changes in the OP, including slowing down the combat - but just a bit. I remember Flash saying in an interview that controlling SC2 was more challenging than BW because of the speed of battles. If it is difficult for Flash, mere humans like the rest of the world will surely benefit from a SMALL slow-down in the attack speed and/or DPS.
On February 14 2015 09:45 Xamo wrote: Kudos to Blizzard, I like them trying it hard
Nice joke dude. It's been 5 years and Blizzard still has no idea how to make mech work for Terran and to make Protoss more proactive without having to resort to 200/200.
You cannot say they are not TRYING right now. I have the feeling that they have the right approach now, not the very limited one that governed the HotS design. Too late? Perhaps... and they should also address the commercial side.I still have the (crazy?) hope that multiplayer will be free-to-play or almost (i.e. First 10 games free for each race, $1 for additonal 50 games). That approach, together with a better designed game, would be refreshing for the whole scene.
Mech would be viable in TvP with an additional transition/support unit, more viable in TvT with that unit and/or a slight nerf to Medevacs and/or Marauders, and is viable in TvZ without swarm hosts, perhaps with a buff to the Thor. The worker change will also make mech strategies develop faster, and that is good. The protoss deathball issue can be fixed with less dependance on AoE and/or by making the collosus at the same time less fragile, less strong and cheaper. Other solutions are possible and probably better, these things can be fixed in all match-ups with a constructive approach from Blizzard and the community. That includes a LONG ENOUGH alfa/beta, or blizzard-supported mods that let us test these new things.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
But only because they made Thors: expensive high cost unit which you cannot let on its own. (no split up of forces) Hellions: that cannot provide any form of mapcontrol (because of hardcounters you can only hope to achieve killing probes, if you split them up) Hellbats: boring amove unit Siegetank: useless Widowmine: bandaid fix to every mech problem.
So the best they came up with in HOTS was combining mech and air upgrades. So every air unit can be assimilated into a normal mech composition. That again was another bandaid fix to me.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2.
Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2.
Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators.
Does creep still give mobility when it's in decline? If yes, then it could be changed and tested in LotV. It'll make zerg fight for map control as creep is currently a no-brainer.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
But only because they made Thors: expensive high cost unit which you cannot let on its own. (no split up of forces) Hellions: that cannot provide any form of mapcontrol (because of hardcounters you can only hope to achieve killing probes, if you split them up) Hellbats: boring amove unit Siegetank: useless Widowmine: bandaid fix to every mech problem.
So the best they came up with in HOTS was combining mech and air upgrades. So every air unit can be assimilated into a normal mech composition. That again was another bandaid fix to me.
No, that's not it at all. Mech in BW worked because there were a lot of anti-deathball mechanics in place by design. Take the siege tank, cost 25 gas less and took only 2 supply in BW while also doing 70 front line damage instead of 50. So why were they balanced?
BW tanks had overkill. That means that if you dropped a zealot in range of like 20 siege tanks, all would fire, wasting shots. Thus you were encouraged to spread your tanks out, not only to protect them from being bum rushed, but to also prevent them from wasting shots. Spreading them out had the added benefit of reducing DPS density, so that a mechball could never just overwhelm an army.
The efficiency of pathing and of targeting and killing of SC2 tanks, and of aoe units in general, is what makes SC2 deathballs so powerful. The examples you have have 0 to do with what made BW mech good.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2.
Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators.
No one says SC2, needs to be 100% like Brood War. What they are saying is that Blizzard could at least fucking try to take the best elements of BW and incorporate them into SC2 to make it a better game. I have no idea why most people have to be more dense then granite when it comes to this. The correct way to do iterative design is build upon existing successful elements, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, which is what Blizzard seems to desperately adamant about doing.
Like someone said on page 2 or something, Fix the existing units.
/terran - Make the widow mine more consistent instead of a lottery. Reduce it's effectiveness so siege tanks, ravens, ghosts and all the other terran support units can see more use. -Hellbat, the other HotS addition, still feels very strong. A-Move splash damage, that costs only minerals : ( -Bio has been incredibly strong since WoL. 3-3 bio is nuts. nerf rines and buff tanks to compensate. Rines need more surface area or different pathing. The problem with bio is it gets exponentially stronger the bigger your bio ball gets, so bio doesn't need support. It's counter intuitive to the terran design. The Attack speed changes seem very exciting to me, but not the solution I was hoping for. Possibly reduce range and increase attack speed of bio, or just increase rine size. To increase their effectiveness in small groups and reduce it in large ones. -Medivacs are the beginning and end of useful Terran support units. Boost was a little much, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread. Make it easier to respond to threats. As zerg or protoss often it feels like you're on the receiving end of terran harassment for the whole game. -limit scv repairs.
/protoss -gateway units are fine, bio is not. -Just scrap the colossus, you're already nerfing it out of play. Also reaver > disruptor. -Make the carrier useful. -Tempest could be possible stargate AoE solution. I understand people don't like AoE in SC2, but at this point it's a nescesarry evil, and air compositions with templar just don't work. Flying reaver is my thought for the tempest, reduce range and price accordingly.
/zerg -you're already fixing swarmhosts! Looks great imo. -infestors and swarmhosts are clunky. Fix the pathing or reduce model size. Seems like swarmhosts and infestors just get caught in the wave of zerg and have a mind of their own. it's really annoying when you burrow a group of swarmhosts and one of them doesn't have room to burrow so he sacrifices himself in a locust wave. Despite you telling him to burrow. -Move air upgrades to evo. If you choose to upgrade both armor and attack on air it's very expensive, making it require two spire is not a viable option. -Reduce time it takes to morph banelings -Zerg too reliant on mutalisks for defense, hydralisks are poor at stopping terran drops because of marines cost effectiveness vs hydra, and hydralisks have poor movespeed even on creep. Hydralisks should have a movespeed increase on creep, as it is now they don't move any faster on creep then they do off creep with the speed upgrade. Hydralisks would be fine if medivacs didn't have boost -_- -revert/reduce mutalisk hots buff -Roach could be rebalanced if bio rebalancing is effective, to reduce their effectiveness vs protoss. -remove range upgrade on hydralisks
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
But only because they made Thors: expensive high cost unit which you cannot let on its own. (no split up of forces) Hellions: that cannot provide any form of mapcontrol (because of hardcounters you can only hope to achieve killing probes, if you split them up) Hellbats: boring amove unit Siegetank: useless Widowmine: bandaid fix to every mech problem.
So the best they came up with in HOTS was combining mech and air upgrades. So every air unit can be assimilated into a normal mech composition. That again was another bandaid fix to me.
No, that's not it at all. Mech in BW worked because there were a lot of anti-deathball mechanics in place by design. Take the siege tank, cost 25 gas less and took only 2 supply in BW while also doing 70 front line damage instead of 50. So why were they balanced?
BW tanks had overkill. That means that if you dropped a zealot in range of like 20 siege tanks, all would fire, wasting shots. Thus you were encouraged to spread your tanks out, not only to protect them from being bum rushed, but to also prevent them from wasting shots. Spreading them out had the added benefit of reducing DPS density, so that a mechball could never just overwhelm an army.
The efficiency of pathing and of targeting and killing of SC2 tanks, and of aoe units in general, is what makes SC2 deathballs so powerful. The examples you have have 0 to do with what made BW mech good.
You make it sound as if Thors/hellbats and terrible siegetanks do not contribute to the problem in sc2. Overkill on tanks is such a small part in a bigger scheme why sc2 mech is uninteresting. Seriously. there are many elements that factor in why mech is how it is in sc2:
1) no overkill (as you mentioned) 2) hard counter damage system. 3) cost of units: 10 vultures for the cost of 750 minerals that can lay down 30 spidermines and are faster than anything else in the game. Role: harrass, map activity and map control + a straight fighting unit. tanks did hit harder and cost less. 4) supply cost of units. I am sorry but how are you supposed to split up if you play with 6 supply thors that are horrible if they have to fight alone. 3 supply for a siege tank. In BW you could have 50 siegetanks that hit way harder for 100 supply. In sc2 you are basically maxed if you build 50 siegetank and you are way weaker than in BW. = Lesser and weaker units that cannot fight on their own. 5) Highground advantage: Do me a favor, start BW again and build 12 dragoons and try to move them up a walled of terran choke with 1-2 siegetanks behind it. If you are a pro you might be able to break it barely. If you are a newb you cannot do it. That brings me to my next point: 6) lock down part of the map: Saying this part belongs to me now! with spidermines and 2-3 siegetanks you can make it incredibly difficult for a protoss player to engage into that. In sc2 you would have to invest 9 supply instead of 6 just for the siege tanks. AND they still do WORSE than sc1 siege tanks. 7) MANY MORE REASONS, but I got lazy writing.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
But only because they made Thors: expensive high cost unit which you cannot let on its own. (no split up of forces) Hellions: that cannot provide any form of mapcontrol (because of hardcounters you can only hope to achieve killing probes, if you split them up) Hellbats: boring amove unit Siegetank: useless Widowmine: bandaid fix to every mech problem.
So the best they came up with in HOTS was combining mech and air upgrades. So every air unit can be assimilated into a normal mech composition. That again was another bandaid fix to me.
No, that's not it at all. Mech in BW worked because there were a lot of anti-deathball mechanics in place by design. Take the siege tank, cost 25 gas less and took only 2 supply in BW while also doing 70 front line damage instead of 50. So why were they balanced?
BW tanks had overkill. That means that if you dropped a zealot in range of like 20 siege tanks, all would fire, wasting shots. Thus you were encouraged to spread your tanks out, not only to protect them from being bum rushed, but to also prevent them from wasting shots. Spreading them out had the added benefit of reducing DPS density, so that a mechball could never just overwhelm an army.
The efficiency of pathing and of targeting and killing of SC2 tanks, and of aoe units in general, is what makes SC2 deathballs so powerful. The examples you have have 0 to do with what made BW mech good.
You make it sound as if Thors/hellbats and terrible siegetanks do not contribute to the problem in sc2. Overkill on tanks is such a small part in a bigger scheme why sc2 mech is uninteresting. Seriously. there are many elements that factor in why mech is how it is in sc2:
1) no overkill (as you mentioned) 2) hard counter damage system. 3) cost of units: 10 vultures for the cost of 750 minerals that can lay down 30 spidermines and are faster than anything else in the game. Role: harrass, map activity and map control + a straight fighting unit. tanks did hit harder and cost less. 4) supply cost of units. I am sorry but how are you supposed to split up if you play with 6 supply thors that are horrible if they have to fight alone. 3 supply for a siege tank. In BW you could have 50 siegetanks that hit way harder for 100 supply. In sc2 you are basically maxed if you build 50 siegetank and you are way weaker than in BW. = Lesser and weaker units that cannot fight on their own. 5) Highground advantage: Do me a favor, start BW again and build 12 dragoons and try to move them up a walled of terran choke with 1-2 siegetanks behind it. If you are a pro you might be able to break it barely. If you are a newb you cannot do it. That brings me to my next point: 6) lock down part of the map: Saying this part belongs to me now! with spidermines and 2-3 siegetanks you can make it incredibly difficult for a protoss player to engage into that. In sc2 you would have to invest 9 supply instead of 6 just for the siege tanks. AND they still do WORSE than sc1 siege tanks. 7) MANY MORE REASONS, but I got lazy writing.
No, you don't get it. AoE units like siege tanks need to be so weak because of how OP they are together. The reason they are so strong together is because of how efficient they are at killing with no overkill. Overkill basically changes everything.
BW tanks had tons of counter-play to them, you could zealot bomb them by droping zealots on top of a cluster and all tanks would fire and destroy each other, you could bait shots with small groups of units and then bump rush with the primary force, you could drag mines into them.
Like seriously, overkill just changes the entire dynamics of aoe units. If you just tweek cost and supply of units you just make SC2 mech into an unstoppable and disgusting deathball, several orders of magnitude worst then Protoss or maybe BL/Infestor.
Look at it this way. When Blizz designed SC2 smarter UI, they realized macro would be a lot easier because they are making it so efficient. To compensate they create macro mechanics, that was a good bit of design decision on their part. Well they unfortunately didn't have the same foresight when it came to aoe units. Instead of implementing more mechanics to keep aoe units in check, to keep them from scaling exponentially, they just nerfed numbers. Ultimately Blizzard failed to address the real problem aoe units still scale exponentially, it just takes a bit more of them, but they are still stupid when stacked.
You can't even begin to contemplate the rest of mech or other unit interaction until you give aoe units a good hard look.
We at Blizzard-SC2-DEV-Team found an ancient Data-Storage-Device. It was shaped like a disc with an odd hole in the middle surrounded by a concentric transparent plastic. It's underside revealed nothing but our own curious faces, while on the upperside, written in an old font, everybody thought was lost it spelled "Warcraft III". While this looked rather sophisticated and printed someone had added a strange code with silver paint and handwriting. We asked our self, what this thing could be, what a Warcraft is and if this is III, where is I and II and will there be more?
We set the device on top of our oldest Computers, Mac and tablets (early 2014), but they failed to connect either by NFC,BT,WLAN.... Asking Scruffy, our old trustworthy janitor what else to do with the thing, he went through his cabinet and he gave us something from the past...as he called it , an external CD-ROM-Drive. Scruffy sensed our contempt on the discovery that the drive did not come with Thunderbolt, but only USB and he left.
What happend as we plugged in the Drive´s rusty cable into one of our PCs and fed the disc into its hungry savage mouth was wonderful.
And was not expected. A green, strangly animated Warriors Face greeted us from our 65" 4K monitor. He dared us to install what happens to be a... a game..Warcraft III...and he even asked for the code we found early to be granted access into his realm. After only a few minutes of terrifying noises from the CD-ROM drive it was over. We waited for the installment to connect to the internet, to share data in order "increase the quality of the product", to validate the data to it's copyright-holder....but nothing happend. How can a game not require an account ? Where does this kind of recklessness end?
We clicked Play ! And We liked it! Oh yeah!....
........And then we wanted to add shadows and slower gameplay to LOTV
LOL
Terran changes: Blizzard is trolling: HERC sucked anyway, i hope the HERC-Tank thing will go down with it.Terran was perfect in 2010, and does neither require or want new units.
Protoss: Well great, why don't add more gatewayunits, since warpgate is the acutal nemesis of map-design?
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then.
What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal.
One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels.
As an idea, if the armies are too big and fast in order to be controlled properly, maybe instead of trying to slow things down ( which is of course a very interesting idea ), the units should simply get more HP (e.g. double health+damage with the adjusted price), thus gaining more value, the lack of which in my opinion is one of the major problems when it comes to the micro ( things going so fast, players simply do not have time to micro a big clump of low HP units before they die, and the game is over instantly ). Also, imo, the worker harrassing would become much more powerful and used ( especially if the worker HP does not get increased) , a goal that Blizzard, is looking to accomplish, especially in LotV. Thus the games could become more low eco and the psi limit (very rapidly achieved now, which is another major problem) would be very hard to achieve, hence more micro and less deathballs.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest?
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest?
I'm no pro but what i found is that due to the strong hard counter nature of P units, you have to play very passive with mech. You can't go out with a few tanks and hellions to take position/attack. The solution i think is to weaken the hard counter nature of some units, and this is exactly what Blizz is doing. Having a fast raider that can threaten more then just light units and thus putting pressure, is also important, and again, this is what Blizz is doing.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest?
I'm no pro but what i found is that due to the strong hard counter nature of P units, you have to play very passive with mech. You can't go out with a few tanks and hellions to take position/attack. The solution i think is to weaken the hard counter nature of some units, and this is exactly what Blizz is doing. Having a fast raider that can threaten more then just light units and thus putting pressure, is also important, and again, this is what Blizz is doing.
I agree with the need for a vulture-like unit. Even if you change the super hard counters to mech its still going to be turtly, albeit less so, because its still so hard to attack with mech. Never played bw multiplayer, however i did play starbow and you can put on so much pressure with a few vultures and 2 siege tanks. Doing damage with sc2 mech with 10-15 supply of units, including siege tanks, is unthinkable.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
1. For these sorts of statments to be verified you actually need to ask the game designers about their design intentions. And blizzard has said they intented to make stargate-based play more viable and autonomous in the past, so the comparison is very valid from my point of view. (of course the actual gameplay is different, while Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions, Factory based play is even more autonomous throughout most of the game, though still quite dependend on Starport play by design decisions of HotS at least) 2. I believe that is somewhat of the bane of the Mech/Bio diversity. For both of them to be viable, the reactions - and in particular the immidiate reactions and game decisions - cannot differ too much. Otherwise you only get "the one or the other game". Optimally we'd want two races to have various strategies A,B and 1,2 and Avs1 is as valid as Avs2, same for Bvs1 and Bvs2 (with strategical adjustments of course). 3. I don't see why the only way to play against Mech should be the ways of bio Terran for Protoss and Zerg. Terran can also choose to play Mech vs Mech. This goes basically to my response to 2. The game should allow me to make some deeper stylistic choices regardless of my opponent's stylistic choices.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then.
What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal.
One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels.
I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle". I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer.
Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it.
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 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. 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.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then.
What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal.
One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels.
I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle".
I find it a lot of fun because it shows the incompetence of the opposing player followed by rage. Or when a Zerg player looses a lot of Mutas to a couple of Thor voleys because he doesn't understand splash, or, in rare occasions, when you beat a Protoss player with mech :D Hearing P players rage that mech is to strong is truly the sweetest thing. D
I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer.
I'm very biased pro mech, and i'll argue that the fault of poor games of x vs mech is as much to do with x as with mech. Mech is not going to attack you on all sides, so if you turtle with bio and rush for air or something, then, who's really to blame? It's a L2P case for both players i think.
Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it.
I personally think the Tank is fine in TvT. It's really a few specific units that are the problem, like the Immortal, SH, and maybe Tempests that are to blame for making mech way to passive or even non viable.
I'll say that there is another big problem in regards to Terran players. Because Tanks are not used a lot, many players at lower levels and even low pro level (think the people Avilo plays against) don't really know how to use the unit correctly, and thus how to fight against it.
My favorite MU to play is TvT mech vs mech, because it's a case of finding openings and out thinking the opponent. As much as i like using Tanks, breaking defensive positions is a great filling, especially when you don't have 1a "counters" but have to relay on exploiting openings, finding weak spots, etc. In a game like SC2 that is so fucking focused on composition wars and counters, TvT is the epitome of good RTS IMO. Taking map position and wining space is actually relevant (as opposed to moving around with blobs up and down for a couple of fights that decide the game), The strong defensive capability of the Tank allows for comebacks (a rarity in SC2), map terrain is more relevant then ever, and so on.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I think having huge potential damage in units is very good, but it has to be about skill, not unit stats. The classic comparison is Oracle vs Reaver. Both can do massive dmg, but one is on auto pilot.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides.
Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest?
Yeah. Mech TvP is passive because it lacks punch in midgame, particularly because some units such as Archons and Immortals overperform against it (while the general threats of being pulled apart via Blink attacks, Prisms, warp-ins are still there; not to mention the possibility of an air transition). Basically there are too many constraints in the Terran side of the equation and you cannot handle them properly. On the other hand, Protoss has many options to deal with mech.
There are four things to be done so mech TvP games become more active:
a) Allow mech to push during midgame = increase the supply efficiency of mech armies below max supply; b) Allow better raiding from mech = increase the threats that are currently blocked by warp-ins, PO and overall the loss of map control; c) Make it so mech has a structural weakness to lategame air fleets = already the case with Tempests/Templars or Carriers/Templars beating Terran fleets; d) Make it so mech is vulnerable to harassment and multi-pronged attacks = already the case with things mentioned in the first paragraph.
All those points are there in TvT, and they were also present in WoL TvZ mech (poorly balanced, but OK in design). For HotS TvZ, Swarm hosts largely destroyed the first point while Ravens/BCs unwisely unmade the third one. As a result, activity is (generally) punished and passivity rewarded.
The first priority would be to tone down the power of the Immortal against mech. For that, I had suggested:
On December 22 2013 23:18 TheDwf wrote: - Rework Hardened Shields in the following way: it still reduces damage from 10 to 20 to 10 (unchanged), but attacks that deal more than 20 damage are halved instead (e. g. a Siege Tank would deal 25 damage to the shields instead of 10).
It seems Blizzard is going that way (and even further) with Barrier now blocking only 100 points of damage (currently, Hardened Shields blocks 400 to 550 damage from Tanks in Siege Mode—accomplishing the little miracle of becoming even more effective when Terran upgrades his Tanks!). That's good, because it opens the possibility for mech to perform (and even more importantly, threaten) midgame pushes, which prevents Protoss from teching too aggressively to Tempests or Carriers, or simply take over the map knowing that stalling for several rounds of warp-ins would crush any sudden push. It also makes small mech armies more efficient, which is much needed.
To further achieve the first and second goals, I would propose the following changes for Terran units. Values are of course there as a rough guide only:
Hellbat An alternate mode is a good idea, but it shouldn't take the form of an 1a AoE Zealot supported by the Medivac heal. I think it should retain the form of a raider, but not anti-Light like the Hellion; it should be able to threaten buildings and thus have a better damage output against Armored targets to challenge small amount of static defence. It should retain the higher resistance of Hellbats because past a certain point, Hellions are simply not enough as a cannon fodder. It should not be melee so mech players have to micro their front line to maximize damage and mitigate splash damage.
Hellions in the modified "Hellbat" Mode Hit points decreased to 125 (up from 90 in Hellion) Range increased to 5 (same as Hellion) Movement speed increased to 4.25 (same as Hellion) Decrease damage point / unit doesn't fully decelerate before shooting (Vulture-like behaviour for the connoisseurs) Damage/attack cooldown changed to 12 every 1.67 second (7.18 dps vs Armored, up from 3.2 for Hellions); single target, no splash Not biological
Widow Mine Needs to cost 1 supply so it can be incorporated into mech play as a defensive/zoning tool + Tank line guardian; individual power to be decreased accordingly. Bio play could take back the form of a Marines/Tanks core in TvZ, with Mines as a support (not as a core unit like currently). The unit would be fully multi-purpose and usable in all phases of the game, with bio and mech alike.
Decrease supply cost to 1 (down from 2) Remove bonus damage vs Shields Splash radius decreased to 1.25 Splash damage to Air targets decreased to 20
Thor This unit is a massive failure on all plans: clunky, slow, impractical, deathbally. The equivalent of the Goliath needs to come back. The unit should retain its inferiority against capital ships.
Decrease cost to 100/50/2 Decrease production time to 40 seconds Decrease GtG attack to 12 (+1) Movement speed increased to 2.5 The theme of a GtA anti-Light mode + a GtA anti-Armored mode can probably be kept. No splash, 6 range.
Viking Colossi should be reworked to lose their vulnerability to anti-air weapons so both Corruptors and Vikings are freed from their "Colossus counter" burden role that makes them boring and stale. With that, Vikings could be reworked into a medium range, quick anti-air fighter with possibilities of harassment thanks to the Ground mode.
Decrease cost to 125/75 Increase movespeed to 3.5 Decrease range to 6.5 Decrease transformation time to 2 seconds Ground form damage decreased to 8
Banshee Costs should be decreased to alleviate the gas/slow production burden. They would retain the same role they have now.
Decrease cost to 125/75/2 50 seconds production time Cloak cost increased to 125/125
On top of that: Separate air/ground upgrades should be reintroduced. Sensor Towers should be weakened (maybe individually cheaper but more expensive when it comes to the cost/area covered ratio). Ravens/Battlecruisers need changes as well, but they're not produced en masse in midgame mech anyway. For information, I had proposed this for Ravens. Battlecruisers need to lose their second Yamato.
Some things are more serious redesign but others are mere rebalancing. The idea would to be build a dynamic TvP mech based around Mines, Hellions and Tanks, with adequate support from the Starport units.
Edit — for the Protoss side, I also forgot to mention some kind of Tempest nerf is necessary. They can't stay as they are, but they're being changed anyway.
On February 14 2015 23:37 Big J wrote: 1. For these sorts of statments to be verified you actually need to ask the game designers about their design intentions. And blizzard has said they intented to make stargate-based play more viable and autonomous in the past, so the comparison is very valid from my point of view. (of course the actual gameplay is different, while Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions, Factory based play is even more autonomous throughout most of the game, though still quite dependend on Starport play by design decisions of HotS at least)
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".
3. I don't see why the only way to play against Mech should be the ways of bio Terran for Protoss and Zerg. Terran can also choose to play Mech vs Mech. This goes basically to my response to 2. The game should allow me to make some deeper stylistic choices regardless of my opponent's stylistic choices.
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.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
Dude if I was Blizzard I would hire you all day every day.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
But the "noobs" want to play with big armies and hate the slow build up.
It's a difficult question this of stress and i don't think anyone has ever solved it.
Ok so i am mostly neutral on many of these, because i'm a zerg player, however i think most of these changes make 100% sense, and i get the feeling the devs are really putting a lot of thought and effort into this expansion (which is a nice change of pace).
I think the immortal change is significant....the unit is already one of the most cost effective in the game, and i think buffing it too much would have broken such a great unit...i think balancing it the way they're headed is the way to go.
the buff to roaches will keep them significant in a new expansion where it seems they will have more counters...so keeping the roach as a useable option will be great. i would love to use roaches more offensively rather than defensively vs terran and toss players...this seems to be a good change cuz it brings back a significan roach rush (tier 1) burrow can do.
lastly, i think the thor change is great. the thor is already pretty damn good...i didn't think the thor needed the auto repair honestly...but that's my opinion.
additionally, i think the viper is already one of the best casters in the game, and adding to its effectiveness (For the cost) will only make them a lot more popular in the late game higher-skilled matches we see.
it's nice for the viper to be a good counter to skytoss...it's already pretty darn good against heavy air, but i think the move from infestor to viper will be a much nicer change to the game.
let's cross our fingers and hope we get to see these new changes in action soon!
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
But the "noobs" want to play with big armies and hate the slow build up.
It's a difficult question this of stress and i don't think anyone has ever solved it.
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.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then.
What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal.
One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels.
I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle". I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer.
Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it.
I disagree, good mech games are rare because high level mech games are rare, take into consideration for example MMA vs Dark, MMA never mech, but then he does and his games are as good as his bio ones, this is largely because mech as a whole is a less viable play style.
A better comparison are TvT mech vs bio games, in TvT pretty much nobody turtles not even below korean level, because since its a mirror both sides have the same units and turtling would be a pretty stupid idea (since the non-turtle player would make the same units but much faster).
Your whole points comes from the fact that your experience has shown you, but what about a toss that turtles in 3 bases until colossus/storm or a zerg that goes roach/hydra into SH every game (and every MU), hell I've seen diamond TvZ games where sides don't attack until almost 200/200, we can't just make the assumption that because bad players are bad the playstyles they use are also bad, if players don't know how to play that isn't the fault of the unit design. (I'm a low level terran that hates storm and is really bad against it but that doesn't mean theres necesseraly a problem with it because of that)
As for the tank buff, one of the things that are a core of the turtle principle is the way risk/reward works with the current mech, right now mech is very fragile but strong composition (fragile because due to the nature of production it can be easily hardcountered if the mech player doesn't have the right units in the right amount), as such mid-game mech is rather weak, however with the raven the mech army becomes much more strong and all around, this gives the player 2 options:
1.- Constantly use fact units to attack 2.- make only the right amount to defend and transition to lategame
The only reason mech isn't mega-super-IMBA right now despite the strenght of the raven is the fact that the mid-game mech isn't as strong, if there is no OP raven then the whole point of turtling disapears as there is no actual goal to turtle, and that way mech players are more pressed to attack.
A good show of this was BW mech TvP, there was no real lategame transition for the terran (maybe SV but they weren't really that necessary) but they had a really strong mid-game as factory units where much stronger than gateway units, the protoss then needed to tech to stronger units (HT, reavers, carriers), however these units where expensive and as such they needed to have more bases and that way the game was a game about map control where taking and denying bases was more important than simply killing units, this what a lot of players refer to when they talk about a buff to the tank, not about making the tank strongh in direct engagements but make positional play more important and if we take into consideration LotV economy changes this becomes more important because a mech army is less mobile (at least the core of it, hellions/cyclones will be very mobile) being capable of holding ground becomes important without necessarily becoming a turtle fest (a good example is the first game of Inno vs Taeja at Blizzcon where the objetives of Inno were less about killing Taejas army and more about taking his own bases while denying Taeja's bases)
On February 15 2015 04:17 ionONE wrote: 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.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers.
Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then.
Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all.
sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2.
Your opinion is not the only one that matters. We don't want SC2 to be like BW just to be like BW. We want SC2 to be like BW because BW is significantly better designed and we want SC2 to last.
On February 14 2015 20:10 Destructicon wrote: No one says SC2, needs to be 100% like Brood War. What they are saying is that Blizzard could at least fucking try to take the best elements of BW and incorporate them into SC2 to make it a better game. I have no idea why most people have to be more dense then granite when it comes to this. The correct way to do iterative design is build upon existing successful elements, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, which is what Blizzard seems to desperately adamant about doing.
It's because a lot of people are newgens who got into the series with SC2, and don't necessarily have the perspective to understand what people are talking about in regards to it. In order to properly comment/understand on these things you need in-depth experience with both games.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
Then play bio. Mech being viable does not mean that bio has to go. Diversity should not suffer because of your personal tastes.
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
Someone should do a mathematical analysis of this, but I imagine that if you remove overkill from units it generally makes them relatively stronger in higher numbers. And Starcraft 2 specifically suffers when you get to higher army counts, so it's an important notion and in my opinion Blizzard's designers should be looking out for these sort of opportunities.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
In my eyes, it's bad AI when the units constantly clump up whenever you issue a move command instead of maintaining any kind of formation. Don't know why Blizzard thinks clump-AI is the future of RTS pathing when it's really just SC2 that uses this kind of system. Even more so given the numerous design and balance implications caused by it.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
I don't even understand that. To remove overkill means to add travel time to the siege tank projectile or to change the weapon class or something technical like that. This will change the unit from the category of units without overkill to the other equally valid category of units with overkill. Nothing has really changed on an overarching level, but it might have positive balance implications, so it seems exactly like the sort of change that designers should rave about. Also, outside of the gameplay benefits, on a personal level I think that all siege tanks in range firing at once is a lot cooler and more understandable than the current system where siege tanks are either psychic and can tell the future or have advanced coordination of weapon systems that seems inexplicable from a lore perspective.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
In my eyes, it's bad AI when the units constantly clump up whenever you issue a move command instead of maintaining any kind of formation. Don't know why Blizzard thinks clump-AI is the future of RTS pathing when it's really just SC2 that uses this kind of system. Even more so given the numerous design and balance implications caused by it.
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote: What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
Ultras don´t even need FF for that :D
Neither do thors. BW goliaths seem more responsive.
I hate how LOTV is beginning to resemble more MOBA and less RTS. I want to be rewarded for macro and army positioning, and less so for spending 200 apm on a single oracle or warp prism. As a low level toss player, here are some of my ideas for LOTV (mainly toss related). Basically the idea is to make toss more solid in the midgame and reduce reliance on gimmicks to survive.
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.
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.
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
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.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
But the "noobs" want to play with big armies and hate the slow build up.
It's a difficult question this of stress and i don't think anyone has ever solved it.
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
Thing is though, i think he's right. When i first started BW, i wanted mass BC, and Carriers, and D+G and we all meet in the centre of the map 20 min later.
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
On February 15 2015 04:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: [...]
On February 14 2015 18:49 ZenithM wrote:
On February 14 2015 18:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:
On February 14 2015 18:39 ZenithM wrote:
On February 14 2015 16:29 OtherWorld wrote:
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work?
Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play.
Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O
Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible.
because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
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.
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.
On February 14 2015 23:37 Big J wrote: 1. For these sorts of statments to be verified you actually need to ask the game designers about their design intentions. And blizzard has said they intented to make stargate-based play more viable and autonomous in the past, so the comparison is very valid from my point of view. (of course the actual gameplay is different, while Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions, Factory based play is even more autonomous throughout most of the game, though still quite dependend on Starport play by design decisions of HotS at least)
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
3. I don't see why the only way to play against Mech should be the ways of bio Terran for Protoss and Zerg. Terran can also choose to play Mech vs Mech. This goes basically to my response to 2. The game should allow me to make some deeper stylistic choices regardless of my opponent's stylistic choices.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
Is this a troll or am I missing something? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On February 15 2015 23:53 Jenia6109 wrote: FF is the problem only in PvZ. But in LotV zerg will have roach free burrow movement, ravager and lurker to counter FF. So the problem is solved!
Except Protoss needs FF to trade with Roaches at all before having upgraded gateway units. I foresee many Protoss dying to Roach/Ravager rushes in alpha/beta before something is changed about that.
On February 15 2015 23:53 Jenia6109 wrote: FF is the problem only in PvZ. But in LotV zerg will have roach free burrow movement, ravager and lurker to counter FF. So the problem is solved!
Problem might solved at earliest at ~7minutes (early roach burrow push). Yet they are the main problem for creating great maps because P needs FF in the first minutes. Thats why all maps from 2010 to now all natural and 3rd anf 4th spots look pretty similar.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
Many zergs would say it´s really frustrating to get rolled over by a death ball. SH are the one thing that allows zerg to hold back toss and mech. Not the most interesting style but without SH zerg would have lots of trouble.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
Many zergs would say it´s really frustrating to get rolled over by a death ball. SH are the one thing that allows zerg to hold back toss and mech. Not the most interesting style but without SH zerg would have lots of trouble.
It's way more frustrating to be sat at max supply for 20 minutes to 3 hours, slowly trading negatively than it is for a game to end at 15 minutes because you didn't manage it as well as you could have done. If zerg absolutely can't play without infestors (pre-nerf) or SH then it's a problem with race that should be fixed
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
Many zergs would say it´s really frustrating to get rolled over by a death ball. SH are the one thing that allows zerg to hold back toss and mech. Not the most interesting style but without SH zerg would have lots of trouble.
If that's the case, then swarm host is a shit fix. You should ask for better.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
Many zergs would say it´s really frustrating to get rolled over by a death ball. SH are the one thing that allows zerg to hold back toss and mech. Not the most interesting style but without SH zerg would have lots of trouble.
If that's the case, then swarm host is a shit fix. You should ask for better.
I think many people have been asking for better from Blizzard over the years, y'know >.>
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
The Tempest not only betrays Protoss and counters the Carrier out of existence, but it also counters the Terran capital ship and Z massive air (Z doesn't have a capital ship-type unit on the same scale as P and T, but BL is the closest) out of existence. It's a brainless EXTREME hardcounter unit that significantly impacts diversity (they didn't learn anything from the Immortal), and should've never been added because the original goal was to give Protoss something to help with mutas which the Tempest did in alpha but doesn't do anymore. They changed their mind, but still added the unit anyways even though it no longer had any official purpose. And look how it ended up. The Tempest is just about as toxic as the SH which is why I mentioned that both should be removed.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
Many zergs would say it´s really frustrating to get rolled over by a death ball. SH are the one thing that allows zerg to hold back toss and mech. Not the most interesting style but without SH zerg would have lots of trouble.
If that's the case, then swarm host is a shit fix. You should ask for better.
The whole community has asked time and time again to fix Protoss in an interesting way. What we get is BL/Infestor and SwarmHost/Static, mutalisk basetrade and drop-em-till-they-fall sort of gameplay because Protoss just isn't beatable in straight up lategame engagments (unless of course you have a massive advantage). If the economy changes don't kill standard Protoss playstyle in LotV Zerg will with 100% certainty get another crap-ass turtle or bullshit basetrade style to beat Protoss because that's the only way. It is the inherent gamedesign/balance of the Protoss deathball army that forces stupid strategies such as SCV-pulls or Static Turtling to be unnerfable.
That's the fix we have been asking for since 2010. Make Protoss more mobile and less deathbally. Or there is going to be something like Swarm Host, Broodlord or Lurker turtling in LotV, guaranteed.
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.
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.
Agreed. Tempest and Swarmhost should be removed. But definitely the Tempest more than anything else.
SH does far more harm to the game than Tempest. Tempest are admittedly dumb too, but SH will prolong games insanely long as well as make them frustrating. Tempest are just dumb from a design standpoint, but at least don't make the games go an extra 30 minutes once they come out.
The Tempest not only betrays Protoss and counters the Carrier out of existence, but it also counters the Terran capital ship and Z massive air (Z doesn't have a capital ship-type unit on the same scale as P and T, but BL is the closest) out of existence. It's a brainless EXTREME hardcounter unit that significantly impacts diversity (they didn't learn anything from the Immortal), and should've never been added because the original goal was to give Protoss something to help with mutas which the Tempest did in alpha but doesn't do anymore. They changed their mind, but still added the unit anyways even though it no longer had any official purpose. And look how it ended up. The Tempest is just about as toxic as the SH which is why I mentioned that both should be moved.
This seems like a wildly exaggerated claim for the PvZ matchup. In fact you see BL quite often and rarely do a couple tempest simply wipe them out. Actually the more I think about these kind of PvZ lategame scenarios the more I see tempests dying to corruptors and motherships being abducted over and over...
For PvT and PvP, again it's debatable. Do you really think terran would make battlecruisers if there were no tempests? Would protoss players really build the current carrier in the mirror matchup?
I still think the tempest is a kind of lame unit though. Slow, expensive, long range. Where have we heard that before? This unit needs a total overhaul to become something with a totally different function.
Some of the best fun I've ever had in SC2 has been in beta and early release of WoL and HotS.
Metagame constantly in flux, new maps, new units, everything changing every other week.
Constantly learning new strategies, new army compositions and fundamentally changing how we played - that was the pinnacle of SC2 and the height of it's popularity through 2010 and 2011.
On February 13 2015 07:47 GoraKasul wrote: I really don't like the direction the Protoss design is heading. To me it feels like they are repeating the exact same mistake they did with HotS. The idea behind the new units seems to be: "We want Protoss to not aim for a deathball in every game but instead focus more on other stuff. Players demand another gateway unit. As a result we will provide a new gateway unit that works well in everything BUT a deathball." The problem here is that this was the intention behind the oracle aswell. A unit that works well in most stages of the game but cannot be massed or put into a 1-hotkey-deathball. And yet every protoss still aims to get to a solid deathball for the later stages of the game. The oracle, and most likely the new unit aswell, is only the means by which players achieve that goal. While it was kinda OK-ish for HotS since Protoss did not have that many different harass based openings during WoL, it's really not needed in LotV. We already have the Blinkstalkers, DTs, Warpprism, Phoenix and Oracle for exactly that task.
What's needed most, in my opinion at least, is another solid core army unit that trades well even on its own - unlike almost all other Protoss units. A Protoss army usually consists of many different units for a reason; each one of those units almost never trades well with the core army units of the other races. Unless in a chokepoint a Zealot will always lose to 4 Zerglings. A Stalker will lose to a Marauder. On top of the worse direct combat performance per ressource spend they also have the worst mobility compared to all other core units. Protoss units combat that deficit by having great synergy with each other and working very well in a maxed out army due to each unit having a dedicated roll in such an army. What that causes, however, is that the Protoss player usually keeps his army together since the parts of the army will perform fairly horribly when not supported by the other units. 2 Colossus left on their own against a small group of Marine/Marauder will usually just roll over and die without causing any damage - as we have recently seen in the herO vs. Maru game in the Proleague Playoffs. Same goes for a bunch of Stalker left alone.
Unless the new unit will be able to reliably end the game on it's own the Protoss will need to build up an army that is able to both beat the enemy army and end the game. And we're basically back to the WoL beta. There is a reason why the army that Stats used to win his NSSL r8 match against Rogue looks so similar to the army that MC used during the later stages of WoL... which in turn looked similar to an army that White-Ra used during the WoL beta. It's all that Protoss has been doing for the last 4 years and I'd be sad if nothing changes with LotV.
This general problem can be further examined by comparing the TvZ to any PvX matchup. The reason why I personally enjoy TvZ more than most other matchups is the fact that there are many small battles that start in the early game and continue well into the late lategame. It's rare that a single one of those battles decides the game but rather who came out ahead over the course of a dozen small skirmishes. It makes it both more action packed and easier to stage a spectacular comeback. Those games are usually percieved as back-and-forth with both commentators and spectators at times not being sure which players is actually ahead in the game. Protoss matchups are usually decided by a single engagement that neither player can effectively disengage from. The matches are dominated by a slow build-up of power from the Protoss with the Zerg/Terran trying to slow him down to get ahead in the eco game. It's rarely back-and-forth and comebacks are unlikely after a lost army engagement. If the protoss wins with his army still intact he usually won't be stopped in time. If the Protoss loses his army he won't be able to rebuild it in time to deflect the counterattack due to the core army units being very inefficient on their own against whatever the opponent brings to bear.
The poor performance of the gateway units becomes apparent when the Terran drops into the main (or any other expansion) of the Protoss while he is moving his army across the map or defending a different location. The main army will be too slow to defend against the drop and quick warp-ins will not be enough to defeat 1-2 medivacs of bio. As a result the Protoss player usually stays in his base and defends until he thinks that his army is strong enough to both kill the enemy and win a baserace.
The only way to change the stale and passive gameplay is to make another unit composition viable in the lategame aswell as provide the Protoss with a core unit that is strong enough to trade well against Marine/Marauder and basic Zerg units such as the Zergling or Roach.
A good example of such a unit is the Widowmine. Despite some of its flaws it achieves that role very well. It's both viable as an early game and lategame unit. It trades well on it's own and as a part of a large army. It can be produced quick and in large quantities. It controls space and can be used as a strong harass tool in combination with Medivacs. If the Terran sends out some Widowmines in combination with Marines and Medivacs it is a very mobile squad that will trade well and not cause the Terran player to instantly lose the game if those units get annihilated. The same is true with Ling/Blind and Roaches. But when was the last time you saw a Protoss move a bunch of Zealot/Stalker groups across the map against a Terran?
The more I think about it the more it seems that the Protoss really needs a Dragoon-type unit.
TL;DR: The new Protoss unit sounds too similar to the Stalker and seems to follow the same design idea as the oracle. It won't change the fact that Protoss will still move in a deathball across the map and it won't change the fact that Protoss has to remain passive the majority of the game(s). Can we please get a Gateway unit that still holds a candle against stimmed Bio or Roach/Hydra without relying on T3 splash tech?
Well tit fuck, you just perfectly summarized everything that I think is wrong with Protoss gameplay wise and why that race feels so unbelievably fragile.
I just want the game to be fun and for micro to be just as important as macro.
Why is it that boring 15 - 20mins sim city games are praised and the epitome of skill, whereas timing attacks and allins that end games earlier are 'cheese' and 'gimmick'? The amount of unit control, micro and quick thinking that goes into a timing attack is so underestimated.
But maps keep getting larger and larger so there are no rush distances. Current and future units do not reward micro. Expansions are way to close together and easy to get.
The game is just so shit and boring right now and it sucks seeing people in this thread praise ideas that contribute to 'better macro' or whatever that means.
I didn't agree with any part of this post, but I wanted to address this point specifically.
On February 16 2015 21:01 NarAliya wrote: But maps keep getting larger and larger so there are no rush distances. Current and future units do not reward micro. Expansions are way to close together and easy to get.
LotV's economy changes, by design, should help to mitigate (albeit not eliminate) deathball play.
Depending on map design, this should lead to more games where constant small engagements all over the map reign supreme.
Its simple:
More bases = army must split up over a larger area.
More small engagements = More rewarding micromanagement.
All new units announced for LotV with the exception of the lurker require substantial micro.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
On February 16 2015 21:01 NarAliya wrote: But maps keep getting larger and larger so there are no rush distances. Current and future units do not reward micro. Expansions are way to close together and easy to get.
LotV's economy changes, by design, should help to mitigate (albeit not eliminate) deathball play.
Depending on map design, this should lead to more games where constant small engagements all over the map reign supreme.
Its simple:
More bases = army must split up over a larger area.
More small engagements = More rewarding micromanagement.
All new units announced for LotV with the exception of the lurker require substantial micro.
Without complete redesign of Protoss it won't change anything. Protoss is designed as THE deathball race. That's why they have the only hero unit in the game. That's why they have planetary cannon with the range of a siege tank.
They can change bases as they like, but how is Protoss player supposed to defend his main when he is on his 4th? Now you have problems to defend your main when you are taking your 3rd!! E.g. KSS, Catallena.
On February 13 2015 05:37 Noocta wrote: Sounds to me they still have no idea in which direction going and they're testing random stuff they throw at each other in meetings.
Psione said that Shade had no manual activation. I wonder if he meant meant no manual deactivation, or if Shade is actually constantly cycling and teleporting the unit.
On February 16 2015 12:03 Hotshot wrote: Honestly, as long as swarm host are in this game, I highly doubt ill play it unless its FTP.
Of all the reasons to not play LotV, that's a pretty bad one. They're completely revamping it, instead of being turtley infinite waves of Locusts it'll be an active harass unit.
I think from what we have seen today on the rotterdam stream, zergs attempt to use the swarmhost like the previous one. In mass numbers, supported by statics, kiting at each wave. I did not expect, even someone at the level of snute, to be as succesful as he was playing like this. In fact, I am not sure I like that the new swarmhost can be used as a part of the core army. It would be like seeing phoenixes being a part of the core protoss army in ZVP just in mass numbers, even without mutalisks on the field, or it would be like seeing mass oracle work in all matchups, at least it is the feeling i am trying to rationalize. I think the unit is best seen as a core harass unit not necessarily going beyond the numbers of 12-20, or at least not being a part of the deathball army. I don´t claim that players should not be able to use units just the way they want instead of the way blizzard intends them to, but if we are redesigning the swarm host, and we want to reduce the amount of super lategame games, why even change the unit?
However, without being too pessimistic, I think currently the average gamelength has probably been 30 minutes and I think that is a very reasonable gamelength for any unit. So my last words would be yes, this looks good, but we gotta be skeptic about the direction of the unit utility.
On February 15 2015 23:53 Jenia6109 wrote: FF is the problem only in PvZ. But in LotV zerg will have roach free burrow movement, ravager and lurker to counter FF. So the problem is solved!
Except Protoss needs FF to trade with Roaches at all before having upgraded gateway units. I foresee many Protoss dying to Roach/Ravager rushes in alpha/beta before something is changed about that.
I think that this might have a good long-term outcome (i.e. weakening forcefields, compensating).
On February 17 2015 11:12 NEEDZMOAR wrote: remove forcefields and warpgate tech already. make protoss a skillfull race.
I understand why people say Warpgate isn't very skilful (since it makes all-ins so easy) but why are Forcefields seen as skilless? The Protoss literally have to cast multiple spells just to trade efficiently in early game engagements, while other races can just amove.
On February 17 2015 11:12 NEEDZMOAR wrote: remove forcefields and warpgate tech already. make protoss a skillfull race.
I understand why people say Warpgate isn't very skilful (since it makes all-ins so easy) but why are Forcefields seen as skilless? The Protoss literally have to cast multiple spells just to trade efficiently in early game engagements, while other races can just amove.
On February 17 2015 11:12 NEEDZMOAR wrote: remove forcefields and warpgate tech already. make protoss a skillfull race.
I understand why people say Warpgate isn't very skilful (since it makes all-ins so easy) but why are Forcefields seen as skilless? The Protoss literally have to cast multiple spells just to trade efficiently in early game engagements, while other races can just amove.
I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
On February 16 2015 21:24 deth wrote: I didn't agree with any part of this post, but I wanted to address this point specifically.
On February 16 2015 21:01 NarAliya wrote: But maps keep getting larger and larger so there are no rush distances. Current and future units do not reward micro. Expansions are way to close together and easy to get.
LotV's economy changes, by design, should help to mitigate (albeit not eliminate) deathball play.
Depending on map design, this should lead to more games where constant small engagements all over the map reign supreme.
Its simple:
More bases = army must split up over a larger area.
More small engagements = More rewarding micromanagement.
All new units announced for LotV with the exception of the lurker require substantial micro.
Without complete redesign of Protoss it won't change anything. Protoss is designed as THE deathball race. That's why they have the only hero unit in the game. That's why they have planetary cannon with the range of a siege tank.
They can change bases as they like, but how is Protoss player supposed to defend his main when he is on his 4th? Now you have problems to defend your main when you are taking your 3rd!! E.g. KSS, Catallena.
Warp-ins + Photon Cannons. It's partially why I always try to leave 10-20 supply open in the late/super-late game.
On February 17 2015 11:12 NEEDZMOAR wrote: remove forcefields and warpgate tech already. make protoss a skillfull race.
I understand why people say Warpgate isn't very skilful (since it makes all-ins so easy) but why are Forcefields seen as skilless? The Protoss literally have to cast multiple spells just to trade efficiently in early game engagements, while other races can just amove.
No they cant.
What do they have to do, then?
Micro, since every unit in the game has basic microability and if you don't do it yourself you will get outmicroed.
On February 17 2015 11:12 NEEDZMOAR wrote: remove forcefields and warpgate tech already. make protoss a skillfull race.
I understand why people say Warpgate isn't very skilful (since it makes all-ins so easy) but why are Forcefields seen as skilless? The Protoss literally have to cast multiple spells just to trade efficiently in early game engagements, while other races can just amove.
Firstly, no race ever can "just a-move", maybe up to Diamond but after that every race requires skill to fight properly.
The problem with forcefields is not that they dont take skill, they certainly do, but they are this completely binary mechanic that your opponent can't do anything about. Once an enemy is trapped in forcefields, it's(almost always) over and you win the fight.
Every other micro mechanic has some sort of escape mechanic except for forcefields and fungal. People have stopped complaining about fungal because it's super hard for zerg to do a proper follow-up. Rolling in banelings is an okay-ish idea but that cuts into your army quite a lot, and it can also be taken care off(by having ranged units or units that don't really take that much damage from them).
Now look at a typical PvZ, if the P has got a few colossi together with forcefields and he traps the zerg's army, it's almost 100% completely dead. Nothing the zerg can do except never fight his army. Which is not a great idea either since if you let Protoss have map control, he can use forcefields to just never let Z_s army inside his main base, or his third, or (...). Nothing Z can do about that.
Now of course there's a whole lot more to PvZ and it's not always that harsh, but thats the kind of situation people think of when they hear forcefield. Remember Archon Toilet? People hated that shit as well even though it was, for the most time, the only reliable way a Protoss could win PvZ in WoL.
FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
This comes up everytime. Never once was it said "Just remove forcefields without doing anything". Not in a serious discussion anyway. People have been crying for a rebalance of protoss without forcefields all the time. They are aware that FFs are needed, but thats part of the problem that needs to be fixed.
It is also the reason people are convinced it well never happen and its just wishful thinking.
Also, what RaFox said. Cannon rushes and 2 base all ins are already happening. Even completely without forcefields.
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
I think every zerg has nightmares of those things already
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
P need a new Warpgate/Gateway unit (strong in early, solid in mid and rather weak in Lategame). Everything is better than FF.
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
Also, what RaFox said. Cannon rushes and 2 base all ins are already happening. Even completely without forcefields.
Sure, but that's by choice, not quasi-forced because winning otherwise is almost impossible. I am aware people didn't just say "Remove FFs", the point I was making is that not the FFs themselves are the problem but rather that Protoss as a whole is the worst designed race so they need the map editor (FFs, Time Warp) to win consistently.
On February 16 2015 21:24 deth wrote: I didn't agree with any part of this post, but I wanted to address this point specifically.
On February 16 2015 21:01 NarAliya wrote: But maps keep getting larger and larger so there are no rush distances. Current and future units do not reward micro. Expansions are way to close together and easy to get.
LotV's economy changes, by design, should help to mitigate (albeit not eliminate) deathball play.
Depending on map design, this should lead to more games where constant small engagements all over the map reign supreme.
Its simple:
More bases = army must split up over a larger area.
More small engagements = More rewarding micromanagement.
All new units announced for LotV with the exception of the lurker require substantial micro.
Without complete redesign of Protoss it won't change anything. Protoss is designed as THE deathball race. That's why they have the only hero unit in the game. That's why they have planetary cannon with the range of a siege tank.
They can change bases as they like, but how is Protoss player supposed to defend his main when he is on his 4th? Now you have problems to defend your main when you are taking your 3rd!! E.g. KSS, Catallena.
Warp-ins + Photon Cannons. It's partially why I always try to leave 10-20 supply open in the late/super-late game.
Late game - yeah, in late game drops are not so big deal. But I am talking about mid game, if you remember the insane dropping play from Bbyong in Hot6ix cup at the end of 2014, that's what I am talking about. You defend 6 drops and the 7th break your neck. You hardly defend 2 bases on KSS and you are supposed to take 3rd faster? How?
This is what I am talking about and this is the problem I see. Though for LotV I substituted 3rd for 4th.
Small skirmishes cannot happen against stimmed bio with no splash damage. You need some huge help - guardian shield, force field(so they cannot kite your slow zealots), planetary siege tank. And this is all happening because of warping, which so core technology for SC2 they are not considering the change of it.
On February 17 2015 19:37 Dingodile wrote: FF prevents opponents micro, thats why it is very terrible. I like to know what you can if your half army is FF zoned. Every micro stuff doesnt work then. WoL fungal was the same garbage, HotS fungal is much much better (except ZvZ).
Put Warpgate to Fleet Bacon or Templar Archives. imo it is only a early thing design problem.
And if FFs were removed? Have fun being cannon rushed and 2-base all-in'd every game as Zerg because Protoss can't safely expand without FF. So something about Protoss in general has to change, and moving Warpgate to tier 3 tech would make Protoss so much worse, probably borderline unplayable if the units stayed the same.
Also, what RaFox said. Cannon rushes and 2 base all ins are already happening. Even completely without forcefields.
Sure, but that's by choice, not quasi-forced because winning otherwise is almost impossible. I am aware people didn't just say "Remove FFs", the point I was making is that not the FFs themselves are the problem but rather that Protoss as a whole is the worst designed race so they need the map editor (FFs, Time Warp) to win consistently.
"Worst designed?" All three of the races are designed around each other...that is how balance is achieved...
Regarding sentries, I read an interesting article that made the suggestion of sentries only being trainable from a closed gateway...like when you do not have warp gate researched. This would slow thier production and take one less warp gate from your disposal...maby two if a sentry heavy army was to be made...
Remove forcefields (disables micro) and chargelots (a-move unit with very small micro), make stalker an harass/precision based unit, add dragoon! Flat 50 damage to the tank (with the Ultra everybody was afraid because of the dps against the non armoured units, archons, zealots, marines, but bottom line was Ultralisk became what was supposed to be). Zerg, let's see how it works with the ravage and with the good track on hydras upgrades and swarm hosts changes.
Keep the good work Blizzard, it's "our" last chance!
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.
Is there any reason in the world to not make all patches 75%? This is just more taxing on non-pro players when they have to manage the worker amount constantly because half of their mineral patches mine out while the others are still good.
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.
Is there any reason in the world to not make all patches 75%? This is just more taxing on non-pro players when they have to manage the worker amount constantly because half of their mineral patches mine out while the others are still good.
More importantly there are 0 reasons not to use reduced efficiency... 1 worker/patch = 100% mining rate, 2 = 65% or so, 3 = 30% or so. Put a "Efficiency : X%" above the town hall for noobs and problem solved, no need to do complex things on mineral patches.
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.
Is there any reason in the world to not make all patches 75%? This is just more taxing on non-pro players when they have to manage the worker amount constantly because half of their mineral patches mine out while the others are still good.
Yes, there is. With 8x75% the base just mines out faster. With 4x100% + 4x50% a base reduces to half efficiency, but is still usable. This encourages expanding.
i saw a snute vs panzer general game with flying locutus with tod casting. honestly, it disgusts me whenever i see swarmhosts, and i was really hoping it would change for LotV. its just awfull, awfull design. ive played WoL in masters league and enjoyed it, but ever since they've added SH, i cant play sc2 longer than few days. if SH continues to be core unit in zerg late game, my interest for sc2 even as a viewer will continue to decline...
Hope they really really look into Hydras and roaches. Iam mentioning this since its usually not brought up when ppl talk about things they want to change.
More micro involved for both units..vPlus if they look at zergling and baneling to so its less a-move.
On February 17 2015 22:31 Foxxan wrote: Hope they really really look into Hydras and roaches. Iam mentioning this since its usually not brought up when ppl talk about things they want to change.
More micro involved for both units..vPlus if they look at zergling and baneling to so its less a-move.
Adding the Burrow movement by default and possibly buffing the movement speed when burrowed is a great start for more roach micro. It won't do too much in bigger amounts, but in smaller amounts burrow micro with good regeneration is pretty OK (not as good as blink, but it makes quite a difference in roach vs roach type of fights) and the extra movement speed helps with burrow-->move backwards-->unburrow(to keep on shooting) type of micro a lot. I hope they shorten the burrow delay though. That would be the most important thing for burrow micro I think.
if you wanna change tempests, can give them splash damage pls? so there is a way to counter mass muta tech switch that doesnt involve already having 8 stargates ready? coz even then its stupidly tough
On February 17 2015 23:01 ejozl wrote: I really don't like the default Burrow movement, if anything I want it removed from the Infestor. Buffing Burrow micro however would be sick-cool.
You're right, it's one of those things that simultanously makes for good harass and bullshit allins I fear. There could be coming a ton of this stuff in LotV (Ravagers, New Warp Prism, Disuptor, Banshee/Tank buffs) which is one of the reasons I'm not looking forward to it too much right now.
On February 17 2015 22:31 Foxxan wrote: Hope they really really look into Hydras and roaches. Iam mentioning this since its usually not brought up when ppl talk about things they want to change.
More micro involved for both units..vPlus if they look at zergling and baneling to so its less a-move.
Adding the Burrow movement by default and possibly buffing the movement speed when burrowed is a great start for more roach micro. It won't do too much in bigger amounts, but in smaller amounts burrow micro with good regeneration is pretty OK (not as good as blink, but it makes quite a difference in roach vs roach type of fights) and the extra movement speed helps with burrow-->move backwards-->unburrow(to keep on shooting) type of micro a lot. I hope they shorten the burrow delay though. That would be the most important thing for burrow micro I think.
Ye something with their burrow would be cool. Something that not only "fix" roach vs roach.
There are alot of variations probably: -Use burrow and move x range for a buff such as Burst of regeneration, reduced dmg taken. To encourage more burrow use with some movement+unburrow pretty quick.
Buffing the burrow is ofcourse possible, their agility. If it turns out to be to strong then just make a debuff or something. Imagine if roaches could explode, not like the banelings but you use "explodebutton" and then after 3sec the roach explodes for some aoe. A new type of micro here? Would be pretty cool marauder vs roach? The zreg can use autoattack on a few roaches and explode a few others.
Not sure what to do with hydralisk but tbh, i dont think its that hard to make hydralisk about more micro. Maybe redesign the unit abit or something.
On February 17 2015 23:01 ejozl wrote: I really don't like the default Burrow movement, if anything I want it removed from the Infestor. Buffing Burrow micro however would be sick-cool.
You're right, it's one of those things that simultanously makes for good harass and bullshit allins I fear. There could be coming a ton of this stuff in LotV (Ravagers, New Warp Prism, Disuptor, Banshee/Tank buffs) which is one of the reasons I'm not looking forward to it too much right now.
Some zerg units can be more specialised such as roach and infestor while the other units still have a delay when burrowing etc.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
herO disagrees with you, as well as all the Zergs he killed with his Stalker/Sentry composition. I mean yes stalkers pretty much suck on their own but their mobility (with Blink) and the support of a few sentries compensate for that.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
2. Scan range adjustment. If you haven't watched the below video, it will explain scan range very well, but the gist of it is that units have a range at which they can attack, and a range at which they select a target to attack. Currently, the latter is often the same as the former, which means that units issued an attack-move command will often overstep beyond their actual range to attack before the scan 'pulses' and they select a target. This is why you frequently see things like non-pro players losing Stalkers to Widow Mines, despite the fact that they outrange them. Honestly, unless there is a significant barrier to it, I hope this change actually gets brought in during HotS, because it's such a huge quality of life improvement at all play levels.
I don't get this. No matter the scan range issue: You attack move with units. They attack. Also, when you attack move into widow mines they'll activate.
Now for "quality of life" when you attack move into widow mines they shouldn't activate. Isn't that just a balance change, not a quality of life change?
2. Scan range adjustment. If you haven't watched the below video, it will explain scan range very well, but the gist of it is that units have a range at which they can attack, and a range at which they select a target to attack. Currently, the latter is often the same as the former, which means that units issued an attack-move command will often overstep beyond their actual range to attack before the scan 'pulses' and they select a target. This is why you frequently see things like non-pro players losing Stalkers to Widow Mines, despite the fact that they outrange them. Honestly, unless there is a significant barrier to it, I hope this change actually gets brought in during HotS, because it's such a huge quality of life improvement at all play levels.
I don't get this. No matter the scan range issue: You attack move with units. They attack. Also, when you attack move into widow mines they'll activate.
Now for "quality of life" when you attack move into widow mines they shouldn't activate. Isn't that just a balance change, not a quality of life change?
It affects balance somewhat, but this isn't only the case vs widow mines, people just want their units to attack with their maximum range when a moving them, it has to be constant and reliable
2. Scan range adjustment. If you haven't watched the below video, it will explain scan range very well, but the gist of it is that units have a range at which they can attack, and a range at which they select a target to attack. Currently, the latter is often the same as the former, which means that units issued an attack-move command will often overstep beyond their actual range to attack before the scan 'pulses' and they select a target. This is why you frequently see things like non-pro players losing Stalkers to Widow Mines, despite the fact that they outrange them. Honestly, unless there is a significant barrier to it, I hope this change actually gets brought in during HotS, because it's such a huge quality of life improvement at all play levels.
I don't get this. No matter the scan range issue: You attack move with units. They attack. Also, when you attack move into widow mines they'll activate.
Now for "quality of life" when you attack move into widow mines they shouldn't activate. Isn't that just a balance change, not a quality of life change?
It has more to do with consistency in unit behavior than with balance tbh.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
herO disagrees with you, as well as all the Zergs he killed with his Stalker/Sentry composition. I mean yes stalkers pretty much suck on their own but their mobility (with Blink) and the support of a few sentries compensate for that.
This kind of composition is more of an all-inish kind of play, it certainly won't take you to a long macro game unless you do significant damage. Anyway, it is still a deathball kind of thing, except with sentries instead of colossus.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
The reason is the colossus and the strength of fast blink-timings. After their peak strength of when blink just finished, stalkers become very weak, very quickly.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
The reason is the colossus and the strength of fast blink-timings. After their peak strength of when blink just finished, stalkers become very weak, very quickly.
I think the colossus is a reaction to stalkers being somewhat weak and no reason. Same with blink, without blink stalkers simply wouldn't be played at all. (well that's not entirely true, you obviously need some "meathshield" regardless) But warpgates don't allow for stronger units, protoss is build around this warpgate idea, which just doesn't seem to work properly..
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
The reason is the colossus and the strength of fast blink-timings. After their peak strength of when blink just finished, stalkers become very weak, very quickly.
I think the colossus is a reaction to stalkers being somewhat weak and no reason. Same with blink, without blink stalkers simply wouldn't be played at all. But warpgates don't allow for stronger units, protoss is build around this warpgate idea, which just doesn't seem to work properly..
I still don't get why warpgate couldn't be some sort of alternative to traditional gateways as opposed to the flat upgrade it is now.
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
The reason is the colossus and the strength of fast blink-timings. After their peak strength of when blink just finished, stalkers become very weak, very quickly.
I think the colossus is a reaction to stalkers being somewhat weak and no reason. Same with blink, without blink stalkers simply wouldn't be played at all. But warpgates don't allow for stronger units, protoss is build around this warpgate idea, which just doesn't seem to work properly..
I still don't get why warpgate couldn't be some sort of alternative to traditional gateways as opposed to the flat upgrade it is now.
Blizzard wants warpgates to be the standard protoss production mechanic, if there would be a unit which is better in your main army out of gateways this wouldn't be the case anymore. They are obsessed by this warpgate idea (tbf, it makes the races more diverse, but probably not in a good way :/)
I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
As you may know, one of our main focus points since the last update has been working on the design of a new Protoss unit. Although not final yet, we have a unit and are very happy with how it is currently playing out. While we don’t yet have a name, we wanted to provide you with some details on this new unit:
It is a core gateway unit with a ground-only ranged attack and normal movement speed. The unit has an ability that sends out a Shade of itself, and after a fixed duration, the unit teleports to the location of the Shade. The Shade can independently move around, but cannot attack or be attacked, and does not impede upon the actions of the main unit. We intend to offer a more in-depth look at this new unit in the near future.
Basic shooter with normal movement please
Ahhhh that's called a stalker.
Stalkers do too little damage to trade efficiently in gateway armies without huge splash-deathballs, which is the kind of thing people want to go away from. The new basic shooter would be the protoss marine or roach - cheap, trades well on it's own allowing you to split your army more and fight without the support of 2+ colossi against midgame armies...
You have to think about WHY the stalker is like that though. There is a reason the stalker isn't already the unit people wanna see and this reason stays in LOTV too. You simply cannot make a basic shooter type unit which is better than the stalker unless you cannot warp it in (i guess). Also forcefields (which are nerfed in LOTV, but only vs zerg)
The reason is the colossus and the strength of fast blink-timings. After their peak strength of when blink just finished, stalkers become very weak, very quickly.
I think the colossus is a reaction to stalkers being somewhat weak and no reason. Same with blink, without blink stalkers simply wouldn't be played at all. But warpgates don't allow for stronger units, protoss is build around this warpgate idea, which just doesn't seem to work properly..
I still don't get why warpgate couldn't be some sort of alternative to traditional gateways as opposed to the flat upgrade it is now.
Blizzard wants warpgates to be the standard protoss production mechanic, if there would be a unit which is better in your main army out of gateways this wouldn't be the case anymore. They are obsessed by this warpgate idea (tbf, it makes the races more diverse, but probably not in a good way :/)
I am fully in favor of them being the main production structure, but it desperately needs a drawback, such as higher cooldown than Gateway production times.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
I'm absolutely not saying that it is broken, I'm talking about design. I am precisely saying that with the increased damage warp ins will be less powerful and thus most P players won't use it and just sit at home and defend, which in my opinion kills what warp-ins were for in the first place.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Even though Blizzard has shown time and time again that they are competent designers, it does not mean they only make correct decisions.
Many a times has it been pointed out that Warp Gate is a flawed mechanic. The only reason that Protoss is not completely broken is that they compensated this flawed mechanic with a lot of other(more or less flawed) mechanics that they absolutely HAVE to have, otherwise the design falls. Weaker warpgate units are a result of warpgates, forcefields are a result of weak warpgate units, robo tech being restricted to "where AoE and roachkillers come from" is a result of forcefields being so strong and so on.
The argument that warpgate is part of the protoss feel is weak. Yes, warping is something protoss has in it, but it's more like a lore type of thing. If you ask people about "what is protoss?" it's not "oh it's the race that can produce units everywhere and negate reinforcement distance!", they say "oh its those high-tech aliens that rely on strong units tightly packed together as well as psy abilities".
Just to make sure: I'm not arguing that Protoss is OP, broken or imbalanced. It's not about that. It's about a certain playstyle being forced upon protoss players through bad design. I think a redesign of certain core mechanics of Protoss(and maybe Zerg/Terran to shake those up as well) would do great work for the fun of the game.
After all, this IS the last iteration of the game. It's the "final Starcraft 2". If it's not going to change now, it's never going to change.
2. Scan range adjustment. If you haven't watched the below video, it will explain scan range very well, but the gist of it is that units have a range at which they can attack, and a range at which they select a target to attack. Currently, the latter is often the same as the former, which means that units issued an attack-move command will often overstep beyond their actual range to attack before the scan 'pulses' and they select a target. This is why you frequently see things like non-pro players losing Stalkers to Widow Mines, despite the fact that they outrange them. Honestly, unless there is a significant barrier to it, I hope this change actually gets brought in during HotS, because it's such a huge quality of life improvement at all play levels.
I don't get this. No matter the scan range issue: You attack move with units. They attack. Also, when you attack move into widow mines they'll activate.
Now for "quality of life" when you attack move into widow mines they shouldn't activate. Isn't that just a balance change, not a quality of life change?
It has more to do with consistency in unit behavior than with balance tbh.
Its inconsistent unit behavior that currently effects balance
It's much bigger than just the mines, it'll make kiting vs everything easier, you don't have to right click the marines and potentially overkill, you can just move back, a move, move back, a move. When u're in blink engagements and u blink back, stalkers will now re-engage into battle, you don't have to order them to do this once more.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Even though Blizzard has shown time and time again that they are competent designers, it does not mean they only make correct decisions.
Many a times has it been pointed out that Warp Gate is a flawed mechanic. The only reason that Protoss is not completely broken is that they compensated this flawed mechanic with a lot of other(more or less flawed) mechanics that they absolutely HAVE to have, otherwise the design falls. Weaker warpgate units are a result of warpgates, forcefields are a result of weak warpgate units, robo tech being restricted to "where AoE and roachkillers come from" is a result of forcefields being so strong and so on.
The argument that warpgate is part of the protoss feel is weak. Yes, warping is something protoss has in it, but it's more like a lore type of thing. If you ask people about "what is protoss?" it's not "oh it's the race that can produce units everywhere and negate reinforcement distance!", they say "oh its those high-tech aliens that rely on strong units tightly packed together as well as psy abilities".
Just to make sure: I'm not arguing that Protoss is OP, broken or imbalanced. It's not about that. It's about a certain playstyle being forced upon protoss players through bad design. I think a redesign of certain core mechanics of Protoss(and maybe Zerg/Terran to shake those up as well) would do great work for the fun of the game.
After all, this IS the last iteration of the game. It's the "final Starcraft 2". If it's not going to change now, it's never going to change.
Warpgate is the most fun mechanic that protoss has. If you don't have that, then you might as well play terran mech and camp for 1 hour every single game.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Even though Blizzard has shown time and time again that they are competent designers, it does not mean they only make correct decisions.
Many a times has it been pointed out that Warp Gate is a flawed mechanic. The only reason that Protoss is not completely broken is that they compensated this flawed mechanic with a lot of other(more or less flawed) mechanics that they absolutely HAVE to have, otherwise the design falls. Weaker warpgate units are a result of warpgates, forcefields are a result of weak warpgate units, robo tech being restricted to "where AoE and roachkillers come from" is a result of forcefields being so strong and so on.
The argument that warpgate is part of the protoss feel is weak. Yes, warping is something protoss has in it, but it's more like a lore type of thing. If you ask people about "what is protoss?" it's not "oh it's the race that can produce units everywhere and negate reinforcement distance!", they say "oh its those high-tech aliens that rely on strong units tightly packed together as well as psy abilities".
Just to make sure: I'm not arguing that Protoss is OP, broken or imbalanced. It's not about that. It's about a certain playstyle being forced upon protoss players through bad design. I think a redesign of certain core mechanics of Protoss(and maybe Zerg/Terran to shake those up as well) would do great work for the fun of the game.
After all, this IS the last iteration of the game. It's the "final Starcraft 2". If it's not going to change now, it's never going to change.
Warpgate is the most fun mechanic that protoss has. If you don't have that, then you might as well play terran mech and camp for 1 hour every single game.
I don't know what Terran Mech has to do with that, but I'd argue that as a mechanic it's only fun because it can be ridiculously strong against new players, on a pro level it's just another macro mechanic like any other(except for those situations where a Protoss warps in 10000 units in his enemy's base, in which case yeah of course thats fun, but that doesn't mean it should be in).
There are plenty of other fun mechanics for protoss, and getting rid of warpgate would make room for a lot more. You don't even HAVE to get rid of it. I'm sure there can be a change to it's core design that makes it viable somehow. Quick idea: Increase the warpin time for a unit based off its distance to the warp gate. Standard time if you warp in near your base, increased warp in time if it's at the other side of the map. Would bring back reinforcement distance, just make it look different.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Even though Blizzard has shown time and time again that they are competent designers, it does not mean they only make correct decisions.
Many a times has it been pointed out that Warp Gate is a flawed mechanic. The only reason that Protoss is not completely broken is that they compensated this flawed mechanic with a lot of other(more or less flawed) mechanics that they absolutely HAVE to have, otherwise the design falls. Weaker warpgate units are a result of warpgates, forcefields are a result of weak warpgate units, robo tech being restricted to "where AoE and roachkillers come from" is a result of forcefields being so strong and so on.
The argument that warpgate is part of the protoss feel is weak. Yes, warping is something protoss has in it, but it's more like a lore type of thing. If you ask people about "what is protoss?" it's not "oh it's the race that can produce units everywhere and negate reinforcement distance!", they say "oh its those high-tech aliens that rely on strong units tightly packed together as well as psy abilities".
Just to make sure: I'm not arguing that Protoss is OP, broken or imbalanced. It's not about that. It's about a certain playstyle being forced upon protoss players through bad design. I think a redesign of certain core mechanics of Protoss(and maybe Zerg/Terran to shake those up as well) would do great work for the fun of the game.
After all, this IS the last iteration of the game. It's the "final Starcraft 2". If it's not going to change now, it's never going to change.
Warpgate is the most fun mechanic that protoss has. If you don't have that, then you might as well play terran mech and camp for 1 hour every single game.
I agree warpgate is pretty fun. There's so much to expand on with it instead of discussing how to limit it. This is an absolute insane idea that is in no way feasible but at least is something new. What if you can create warp pylon? They have 2.5x the warp in area but units are bound to the area of the warp pylon. Warped units change shade to indicate that they are bounded. Warp pylons can connect to create large walk areas. Units can teleport between warp pylons weakened by warp out/in time. Warp units can free themselves of the area by warping to a nexus. Warp pylon also grants additional shields and regeneration to units bounded.
Above is the kind of insane shit that should be theorized on how to advance warp tech instead of nerf it.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
Yeah I agree warpgates set P apart and I quite like it. I'd like gateways to be an alternative but the current change is really bad ; it's a straight up nerf without any compensation. They have to be more creative.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss.
Yes, Blizzard. Not players. Of course if you don't want to modify something, the first thing to do is to decree that this thing is essential and critical and untouchable. But the existence of SC1 Protoss without Warpgate completely denies the idea that Protoss without Warpgate wouldn't be Protoss. In fact, many arguments could be made about why Protoss without Warpgate would be even more Protoss-ish. The main contribution of HotS to Zerg is the Swarm host, yet no one would think about stating that SHosts are absolutely critical to the identity of Zerg, nor that "Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without the Swarm host". Removing it (at least in its current form) would, on the contrary, restore a certain Zerg identity. The same could be said about Warpgate. The theme of a technologically advanced race, relying on individually powerful units, mastering teleportation and whatnot—in short Protoss—can totally exist without Warpgate in its current form.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss.
Yes, Blizzard. Not players. Of course if you don't want to modify something, the first thing to do is to decree that this thing is essential and critical and untouchable. But the existence of SC1 Protoss without Warpgate completely denies the idea that Protoss without Warpgate wouldn't be Protoss. In fact, many arguments could be made about why Protoss without Warpgate would be even more Protoss-ish. The main contribution of HotS to Zerg is the Swarm host, yet no one would think about stating that SHosts are absolutely critical to the identity of Zerg, nor that "Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without the Swarm host". Removing it (at least in its current form) would, on the contrary, restore a certain Zerg identity. The same could be said about Warpgate. The theme of a technologically advanced race, relying on individually powerful units, mastering teleportation and whatnot—in short Protoss—can totally exist without Warpgate in its current form.
All balance/design considerations aside, warpgate is the main reason why I chose Protoss at the beginning (the other being the buildings constructing on their own ^^). Being able to teleport units wherever you have a pylon is BADASS. OK this may not be the best thing design wise, but P without warpgate is just similar to T without the subtlety of add-ons. I think Blizzard are right (for once) to try to make this mechanic work rather than removing it.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss.
Yes, Blizzard. Not players. Of course if you don't want to modify something, the first thing to do is to decree that this thing is essential and critical and untouchable. But the existence of SC1 Protoss without Warpgate completely denies the idea that Protoss without Warpgate wouldn't be Protoss. In fact, many arguments could be made about why Protoss without Warpgate would be even more Protoss-ish. The main contribution of HotS to Zerg is the Swarm host, yet no one would think about stating that SHosts are absolutely critical to the identity of Zerg, nor that "Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without the Swarm host". Removing it (at least in its current form) would, on the contrary, restore a certain Zerg identity. The same could be said about Warpgate. The theme of a technologically advanced race, relying on individually powerful units, mastering teleportation and whatnot—in short Protoss—can totally exist without Warpgate in its current form.
All balance/design considerations aside, warpgate is the main reason why I chose Protoss at the beginning (the other being the buildings constructing on their own ^^). Being able to teleport units wherever you have a pylon is BADASS. OK this may not be the best thing design wise, but P without warpgate is just similar to T without the subtlety of add-ons. I think Blizzard are right (for once) to try to make this mechanic work rather than removing it.
I guess it's somewhat iconic, but I mean so was the mothership and they essentially removed that as well - for the better of the game.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss.
Yes, Blizzard. Not players. Of course if you don't want to modify something, the first thing to do is to decree that this thing is essential and critical and untouchable. But the existence of SC1 Protoss without Warpgate completely denies the idea that Protoss without Warpgate wouldn't be Protoss. In fact, many arguments could be made about why Protoss without Warpgate would be even more Protoss-ish. The main contribution of HotS to Zerg is the Swarm host, yet no one would think about stating that SHosts are absolutely critical to the identity of Zerg, nor that "Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without the Swarm host". Removing it (at least in its current form) would, on the contrary, restore a certain Zerg identity. The same could be said about Warpgate. The theme of a technologically advanced race, relying on individually powerful units, mastering teleportation and whatnot—in short Protoss—can totally exist without Warpgate in its current form.
All balance/design considerations aside, warpgate is the main reason why I chose Protoss at the beginning (the other being the buildings constructing on their own ^^). Being able to teleport units wherever you have a pylon is BADASS. OK this may not be the best thing design wise, but P without warpgate is just similar to T without the subtlety of add-ons. I think Blizzard are right (for once) to try to make this mechanic work rather than removing it.
I guess it's somewhat iconic, but I mean so was the mothership and they essentially removed that as well - for the better of the game.
? Only vortex was removed, the mothership (the fully fledged one) is very much alive. It's very common in PvZ for instance.
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss.
Yes, Blizzard. Not players. Of course if you don't want to modify something, the first thing to do is to decree that this thing is essential and critical and untouchable. But the existence of SC1 Protoss without Warpgate completely denies the idea that Protoss without Warpgate wouldn't be Protoss. In fact, many arguments could be made about why Protoss without Warpgate would be even more Protoss-ish. The main contribution of HotS to Zerg is the Swarm host, yet no one would think about stating that SHosts are absolutely critical to the identity of Zerg, nor that "Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without the Swarm host". Removing it (at least in its current form) would, on the contrary, restore a certain Zerg identity. The same could be said about Warpgate. The theme of a technologically advanced race, relying on individually powerful units, mastering teleportation and whatnot—in short Protoss—can totally exist without Warpgate in its current form.
All balance/design considerations aside, warpgate is the main reason why I chose Protoss at the beginning (the other being the buildings constructing on their own ^^). Being able to teleport units wherever you have a pylon is BADASS. OK this may not be the best thing design wise, but P without warpgate is just similar to T without the subtlety of add-ons. I think Blizzard are right (for once) to try to make this mechanic work rather than removing it.
I guess it's somewhat iconic, but I mean so was the mothership and they essentially removed that as well - for the better of the game.
? Only vortex was removed, the mothership (the fully fledged one) is very much alive. It's very common in PvZ for instance.
Well yeah, but that has been a recent thing, before that it was virtually "nonexistent" and Blizzard had no problem with that. It's not what it was before at all.
On February 18 2015 04:27 KeksX wrote: Many a times has it been pointed out that Warp Gate is a flawed mechanic. The only reason that Protoss is not completely broken is that they compensated this flawed mechanic with a lot of other(more or less flawed) mechanics that they absolutely HAVE to have, otherwise the design falls. Weaker warpgate units are a result of warpgates, forcefields are a result of weak warpgate units, robo tech being restricted to "where AoE and roachkillers come from" is a result of forcefields being so strong and so on.
It strikes me that there is something really wrong with your thinking on this. Forcefields are not the result of weak warpgate units, they're just a mechanic Blizzard came up with. Robo tech being restricted is just because Blizzard made it that way. And "weaker" warpgate units are because of various other decisions by Blizzard. Etc. You talk about Blizzard as if they are some natural force making perfectly rational design decisions constantly, but that's not true at all. They just implement random things, often based on lore or previous games, with various degrees of incompetence and they also can't predict the future. So rationally speaking warpgate units being weaker because of warpgate makes sense. But are they actually weaker? It's perfectly possible that warpgate units are hugely powerful due to warpgate and Blizzard just didn't account for this effect.
Also, just imo, but it makes no sense to talk about warpgate units being weak if you don't take warpgate into account, since that's like saying zerglings are useless without metabolic boost (omg, metabolic boost is a crutch!)
They just implement random things, often based on lore or previous games, with various degrees of incompetence and they also can't predict the future. So rationally speaking warpgate units being weaker because of warpgate makes sense. But are they actually weaker? It's perfectly possible that warpgate units are hugely powerful due to warpgate and Blizzard just didn't account for this effect.
Thats not true at all. RTS unit design IS a rational thought process. If they just implemented random things and yolo'd their way through it, we'd have something like Age Of Empires 3 or Command & Conquer(funnily enough Browder worked on a title of that series, and you can see his influence on the game is actually kinda like that. C&C sometimes actually felt like a yolo-game in some regards).
RTS Unit design is a complex process. Just look at the new units suggestions from Kim and Browder @ HotS and now LotV. They all justify units by stating problems they're there to solve.
Initial unit design is mostly influenced, as you said, by lore and past iterations. But it's also based on gameplay goals (there was this very specific feeling they wanted to copy from Brood War, they could've gone for the Age of Empires approach as well but they didn't)
You talk about Blizzard as if they are some natural force
They're not a natural force, they're a game company that designs RTS games. Creating those games is a, not completely for obvious reasons but at least partially, rational process.
Forcefields are not the result of weak warpgate units, they're just a mechanic Blizzard came up with.
They came up with it for a reason. Of course there's always the creative part of design, and I agree that thats a heavy thing. But they didn't just said "Okay so sentry unit, it has forcefields that do X, and guardian shield that does Y, and then they also have X values of damage and range". --- I unfortunately do not know their full design process but I imagine there were a lot of things like "Okay, so we need a Protoss unit that fullfills role X and can do Y so we fix problem Z".
Also, just imo, but it makes no sense to talk about warpgate units being weak if you don't take warpgate into account, since that's like saying zerglings are useless without metabolic boost (omg, metabolic boost is a crutch!)
Thats a very good point, but the difference is that I could take out metabolic boost and zerg would still be a viable race(although one thats a lot more limited), and (maybe, just an assumption) I could even rebalance zerglings if I adjusted their values a bit.
Taking out Warp Gate, without doing anything else, would leave Protoss completely broken right now and there'd be almost no value you could adjust to compensate without breaking another part of the game.
and they also can't predict the future.
Thats why we have patches. Nobody expects them to predict the future, the problem here is that Blizzard is not willing to invest into deeper cuts and changes in the gameplay. They only play around with the mechanics currently there.
I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF.
On February 18 2015 07:54 coolman123123 wrote: I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF.
I think if they added strong gateway non-warpgate unit, it would give a lot of breathing room for other changes and help the game. Hopefully blizz will test something like this with that shade.
Removing warpgate is to change one of the fundamental aspects of the game. It would require a re-balancing the likes of which is outside the scope of an expansion. I doubt very much that is going to happen.
What I do think they can do is make gateways more useful, such that they are a valid alternative to warpgate. Maybe they produce units faster, or maybe you can't chrono warpgates anymore, or maybe even have gateways pull double-duty and have them act like SC1 shield batteries. There's been lots of good suggestions on this forum, I'd like to see Blizz do some experimenting during this expansion.
all sentry pushes in PvZ just died a horrible death. roach + burrow.
that's all gateway only and robo aggression. plus, how do protoss hold a 3rd? ever? this new 'ground shooting unit' better be a freakin' mini immortal is all i can say.
There are plenty of core units that cannot be warped in. Blizzard just needs to open their eyes and balance them properly. Especially this bad guy: can't shoot air, completely overkills armored units, completely overkills burst damage type of enemies, only barely decent against many low-tier Z/T units; too slow to go alone or run away after a skirmish --> should be remade into a universal, quicker anti ground unit that doesn't kill enemy strategies upon just having a bunch of them
People who want to have a gateway unit that just trades superwell without requiring a hightech building (High Templar) or an upgrade (Blink, Charge) while claiming that the other races have that stuff are hypocrits. When I read that stalkers aren't good without blink and then have trouble in the lategame on their own should try to fight with slowlings/slowroaches/unstimmed MM and without the support of units like Vipers/Medivacs against standard Protoss armies for once. I can understand why you guys hate to play with your own T2-T3 army units when it's turtlebullshit like Immortals, Colossi and Voidrays while Z and T got the mentioned above plus stuff like Ultras and Ghosts, but that doesn't privilege you that a 150/0 cybercore should be enough of tech to go 15mins into a game while the other races are working off their asses to balance all their tech and specific unit upgrades (as you have to do now as well). Again, the type of units you are looking for are there. They just are shit designed or situational. Now instead of whining that the stuff that is already strong and that already makes up for most of your army should get better, do what Zergs and Terrans have been doing and whine that there is too much stuff that doesn't work. Or don't because you don't want to lose Immortal and Colossus allins (in their current form) by making the units well-designed, but then don't expect anyone to stand up for your absurd and irrational cause of getting stalkers buffed or some sort of cybercore counterall being introduced.
On February 18 2015 08:39 ElMeanYo wrote: Removing warpgate is to change one of the fundamental aspects of the game. It would require a re-balancing the likes of which is outside the scope of an expansion. I doubt very much that is going to happen.
You don't think their economy overhaul already necessitates a complete re-balancing? Lol.
One thing people often don't take into account when discussing warping in is how risk-free it makes certain aspects of Protoss play. To harass a Terran's economy, a Protoss will send out a WP and warp in 12 Zealots. If the WP dies en route, he loses the WP's worth of resources.
To harass a Protoss's economy, a Terran will send out two Medivacs full of bio. If the Medivacs get Feedbacked/Stalkered en route, the Terran loses the Medivacs (which hurts his army) and all of the bio.
Combined with how good A-move Zealots are in general, vs. how ineffective unmicroed bio is in small numbers, this means Protoss is only slightly penalized for having shitty multitasking when harassing, and can only gain a slight advantage by having fantastic multitasking. It lowers the skill ceiling and raises the skill floor. That's exactly the opposite of what I look for in a competitive event.
On February 18 2015 07:54 coolman123123 wrote: I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF.
Any spell which limits the movement of the opposing forces is a terrible design concept because the losing side cannot "fall back" strategically. This is more than just a map design problem; it fundamentally interferes with what RTS game should be all about.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers.
Taking the races one at a time:
ZERG:
Zerg have lacked options for a core mid game army for the entire of sc2. Zerg relies on low tier units such as the roach, zergling and baneling, for too long, past the point where they are a good return on investment. The zerg player tends to struggle when the terran or protoss get to 140 supply, because the low tier zerg units don't fight well against larger enemy armies. This is the point when zerg really needs a better core army unit to help to transition into hive. The introduction of the ravager and lurker should help this a great deal.
The only other major problem with zerg is that the hive units feel weak. The broodlord is too slow to be effective on the larger maps, but their slow speed is necessary to counter their powerful attack and difficult to fight broodlings. I think it would fit the larger maps better if broodlords moved much faster, but their broodlings didn't last as long - perhaps they only do one additional attack before dying. This would remove one of the more annoying aspects of the broodlord for both the zerg (their immobility) and their opponent (less broodlings to dead with).
One way I think zerg melee units (especially ultralisks) could be made more fun in lategame is to increase their mobility. Introduce an upgrade at hive that allows zerglings and ultralisks to jump down cliffs. This would increase the swarminess of these units. They wouldn't be much more powerful in main an natural assaults (because those cliffs go up), but it would allow zerg melee units more mobility in the middle of the map, which is where most of the action would be happening. Would introduce options for the opponent to bait the zerg down a cliff into a losing battle they can't retreat from.
One last thing is spore crawlers do too much damage to mutalisks. I think the damage buff that was made removed mutalisks as a viable option, which I see as a bad move because infestors already countered mutalisks, and I think zerg vs zerg was more fun when there were more options.
PROTOSS:
Protoss gateway has been problematic. It's either too weak or too strong, based on upgrades and the state of the game. It relies a lot on two extremely powerful upgrades (blink, warpgate) and one extremely powerful spell (forcefield). Especially noticeable against zerg is the situation where a protoss army can either completely dominate, or be decimated based on very few decisions or moments of luck (a gap in the forcefields, blinking well).
I could never understand why warpgates were a direct upgrade from gateways. It seemed like there was an opportunity to have multiple different ways of building units, both with their pros and cons. I think one way to balance things would be to make warpgates warp in units slower than gateways build. This would make warpgate rushes more difficult, but still allow for remote building of units if you're prepared to suffer the cost of less units over time.
With forcefield, I think two things need to happen. I think the sentry should be made a purely caster unit. I think guardian shield should change to give +2 to attack and shield regen in combat as well as it's usual armor buff. Now sentry is a powerful aura unit with forcefield, but it's buff doesn't stack (so having a lot of them with overlapping auras won't have much of an effect) and it doesn't itself do damage. Would mean that you can't rely only on a lot of sentry.
I think protoss needs to have another normal, ranged gateway unit. Something like a dragoon basically. The stalker is a great harassment unit, but is not that great in end game battles (a weakness that is somewhat obscured by the overpowered colossus). The protoss needs a powerful, massable, more expensive gateway unit that can be a backbone in late game battles (but that needs support to prevent it from being overwhelmed).
I also think the stalker needs a change. I think that it's life should be changed from 80 health 80 shields to 40 health 120 shields, and blink should cost 10 shields. That cost will offset the ability's power in a way that makes it still powerful, but makes blink micro keep stalkers alive slightly less long (because they're losing more shields). This would keep stalkers' role as harassment units, but would make them less useful en masse, and keep them from having an overlapping role with dragoons.
I think the colossus should move slower. It's too powerful, but I think part of that is it's too quick. It pretty much keeps up with a gateway army. It should be more of a burden to escort around the battlefield. It is such a powerful tool when it's in the right place, it should be harder to get it there.
I don't want to think about protoss air.
TERRAN:
I think the biggest mistake in the design of terran was the medivac. By coupling a critical component of the terran army (healing) with drop technology, blizzard essentially gave terran drops for free. And by not needing medics, the terran could fill the medivacs with all attacking units, further increasing the power of the drops. Then medivacs got speed boost, which made them even more mobile and harder to kill. So no wonder most of a terran's life is spent dropping - it's the most powerful ability they have by far.
I think the external healing component should be removed from medivacs, and instead medivacs should heal units that are inside it. That would allow them to still be useful in drops, and in getting injured units to safety, but would not be a core part of the terran army. Medics should be put back into the game. They would serve as nice blockers against banelings and zealots, and are better to watch than medivacs (which get in the way of the battle).
On February 18 2015 09:03 Big J wrote: Again, the type of units you are looking for are there. They just are shit designed or situational. Now instead of whining that the stuff that is already strong and that already makes up for most of your army should get better, do what Zergs and Terrans have been doing and whine that there is too much stuff that doesn't work. Or don't because you don't want to lose Immortal and Colossus allins (in their current form) by making the units well-designed, but then don't expect anyone to stand up for your absurd and irrational cause of getting stalkers buffed or some sort of cybercore counterall being introduced.
Who the hell is saying that? If anything, protoss players would happily give up gimmicky all-ins in a heartbeat if it meant stronger core units and less reliance on a tiny handful of super-powerful units and spells like the forcefield, warpgate, and colossus. It's why I'm not very pleased with the disruptor as it's just another gimmick that either works and you win or it fails and you waste a ton of money and lose the game.
On February 18 2015 09:03 Big J wrote: Again, the type of units you are looking for are there. They just are shit designed or situational. Now instead of whining that the stuff that is already strong and that already makes up for most of your army should get better, do what Zergs and Terrans have been doing and whine that there is too much stuff that doesn't work. Or don't because you don't want to lose Immortal and Colossus allins (in their current form) by making the units well-designed, but then don't expect anyone to stand up for your absurd and irrational cause of getting stalkers buffed or some sort of cybercore counterall being introduced.
Who the hell is saying that? If anything, protoss players would happily give up gimmicky all-ins in a heartbeat if it meant stronger core units and less reliance on a tiny handful of super-powerful units and spells like the forcefield, warpgate, and colossus. It's why I'm not very pleased with the disruptor as it's just another gimmick that either works and you win or it fails and you waste a ton of money and lose the game.
lol protoss has mother ship cannon its a win win situation nothing to lose when you all in as a protoss player lol :D
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
How do you explain TvZ being full of both harassment and army vs army action, without devolving into deathblobs?
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: With forcefield, I think two things need to happen. I think the sentry should be made a purely caster unit. I think guardian shield should change to give +2 to attack and shield regen in combat as well as it's usual armor buff. Now sentry is a powerful aura unit with forcefield, but it's buff doesn't stack (so having a lot of them with overlapping auras won't have much of an effect) and it doesn't itself do damage. Would mean that you can't rely only on a lot of sentry.
That would just lead to more deathballs. +2 attack on sentry is very strong, that means units can't be strong by themselves. Guardian shield is made for deathballs and not small skirmishes even if it doesn't stack.
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I think the external healing component should be removed from medivacs, and instead medivacs should heal units that are inside it. That would allow them to still be useful in drops, and in getting injured units to safety, but would not be a core part of the terran army. Medics should be put back into the game. They would serve as nice blockers against banelings and zealots, and are better to watch than medivacs (which get in the way of the battle).Thanks for you time
That's too big to change. I'm all for removing warpgate, collosi, tempest, swarmhosts etc, but this is just too big I think.
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
How do you explain TvZ being full of both harassment and army vs army action, without devolving into deathblobs?
Harassment has a lot to do with it, but I think it is mainly just that the unit interactions are much better in TvZ than in any other non-mirror matchup. You trade blow for blow, banelings for marines, mines for banelings, zerglings for mines, mutas for medivacs. Nothing ever comes without a real danger for the units involved. If you want to drop you know that your units are in severe risk of dying to mutalisks. Banelings don't kill units twice. Mines cooldown give zerg a lot of time to deal with the unit after it has activated. Marine speed and baneling speed have been intentionally designed in an extremely healthy relation to each other. Hellions wreck shit but also always take damage from queens and speedlings and roaches. And even when the dynamics aren't that good (like roach/hydra vs bio) there is still lots of unit trading involved.
There are very little things that trade energy for resources or outrange the enemy in such a severe way that it can kill stuff for free. This isn't the case with forcefields, blink, Colossi, Photon Overcharge, Time Warp and Storms. Protoss always trades nothing vs something at the start of their battles until they run out of their initial defenisve abilities and range advantages. This creates dynamics in which Protoss oppoents build overwhelming force to survive the phase in which you get nothing done against them, to then evaporte them in very few seconds. And Protoss needs overwhelming force of trading prevention to not let that happen. The TvZ matchup becomes much worse if it gets to a phase in which there are also a lot of these sorts of units involved (Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Broodlords, Vikings Ravens, Siege Tanks). In PvZ and TvZ T/Z also utilize many more of those free trading mechanics against Protoss (Ghost, Viking, Swarm Host, Viper) and Protoss is much worse at defending mobile forces which can make proper medivac/mutalisk usage also such a free trading mechanic. That doesn't mean that those mechanics are bad in general - they are very much needed to overcome turtle play - but if they become your core way of playing both people have a hard time getting stuff done.
It also helps in TvZ in that the armies are generally comprised of cheap, quick to build, units, so there's always plenty of action from start to finish. Just lost your army? No problem, a few mule/larva injects and your army is good to go again. PvX matchups are always slow because the protoss player has to keep his units alive at all costs as they're tough to replace.
I find PvT matchups to be more fun when they focus on templar over colossi because it allows both players to rely less on massing colossus/vikings and more on mobile units. Terrans will drop in multiple locations, which prompt toss players to respond with chargelots, which actually trade decently in small engagements. Meanwhile, storms are dodgeable by bio units, but can shred armies if the terran doesn't micro. Still not as exciting as TvZ, but it gets pretty fun.
On February 18 2015 11:40 Spawkuring wrote: It also helps in TvZ in that the armies are generally comprised of cheap, quick to build, units, so there's always plenty of action from start to finish. Just lost your army? No problem, a few mule/larva injects and your army is good to go again. PvX matchups are always slow because the protoss player has to keep his units alive at all costs as they're tough to replace.
I find PvT matchups to be more fun when they focus on templar over colossi because it allows both players to rely less on massing colossus/vikings and more on mobile units. Terrans will drop in multiple locations, which prompt toss players to respond with chargelots, which actually trade decently in small engagements. Meanwhile, storms are dodgeable by bio units, but can shred armies if the terran doesn't micro. Still not as exciting as TvZ, but it gets pretty fun.
yes that contributes too and I agree about the templar thing, Templars - in lower numbers at least - behave a lot like mines or banelings. You have a few of them and you gotta make them count, but it's not sure damage. Though I'm not 100% certain about the "cheap" factor being that dominant. Medivacs and mutas aren't that cheap, yet still being put at high risk. Same goes for those forgg-esque Mechstyles and units like Ultralisks. I think the reason is again that those units are "designed to die", while a unit with blink or an army relying on forcefield just isn't. Those units are made to survive, cheap or not so cheap. Protoss playstyles that get away with playing a lot of zealots for example are much more exciting during the combats, because zealots are also made to die.
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
ZERG:
Zerg have lacked options for a core mid game army for the entire of sc2.
This is ignoring mutas and hydras, swarm hosts and infestors. Basically you're saying zerg have no mid tier tech by ignoring the mid tier tech. You're just flat out wrong.
I would like a modified version of the Panther from the WoL campaign. Make it either Tech Lab Barracks or no-tech Factory produceable, with an active ability that lets them pounce for some aoe. More fun if they will be able to pounce up/down ledges.
Moderately fast akin to charge-lots, but without the charge.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps.
It's the exact opposite of what Blizzard has stated they want. They don't like that Protoss can simply warp in units to defend already. They also want to encourage people to harass more with Protoss via warp prisms.
Would pretty much guarantee they'd completely oppose this.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps.
It's the exact opposite of what Blizzard has stated they want. They don't like that Protoss can simply warp in units to defend already. They also want to encourage people to harass more with Protoss via warp prisms.
Would pretty much guarantee they'd completely oppose this.
I see, well you could still use warp prisms to drop units for harass, or make the warp prism the only other thing to warp around apart from the nexus.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps.
It's the exact opposite of what Blizzard has stated they want. They don't like that Protoss can simply warp in units to defend already. They also want to encourage people to harass more with Protoss via warp prisms.
Would pretty much guarantee they'd completely oppose this.
I see, well you could still use warp prisms to drop units for harass, or make the warp prism the only other thing to warp around apart from the nexus.
Doesn't detract from the point it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what Blizzard wants. Less harass potential and easier defending vs. harass.
On February 18 2015 14:24 Estancia wrote: - Buff gateway units - Remove forcefield - Rework warp gate
Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff.
Plz Blizzard. Plx yes. This is the change.
That's what they're doing: new gateway unit, forcefield nerf, warpgate nerf. They're just not outright removing stuff from the game since they have limited resources and this is the final expansion, so it would be too much to bother with a complete redesign.
I think that moving WG to later stage of the game would help with opening the window for gateway units rework. Such solution has Starbow, however they went quite hard with it and they moved WG to late game, I'd prefer to move it to mid-game when you've established your natural and you're ready for defense. There could be for example requirement for WG to have TC or even straight move WG to TC. Additionally we may add simple nerf to warped units in form of reducing shields of warped unit to 0. Shields regenerate quite quickly, however if you would warp in units for all-in or defense they would be much weaker in first couple of seconds but wouldn't affect harass that much because when you harass you try to avoid enemy's army so no shields on harassing unit wouldn't matter that much in comparison to straight up engagement. With the before mentioned changes we could add strong core gateway unit like dragoon without the fear of imbalanced 2base all-in which would allow Protoss'es to engage army's without FF/AoE and then we can think about redesigning/removing FF/colossus.
I still don't understand why there is no disadvantage of having warp gates. For example we can buff units made from gateways.
Eg> Khaydarin Amulet disappears when the templar is warped in, but the templar has it if he is produced(well, warped, but you know, it is confusing, right?) from gateway. Therefore you can have 75 energy templars, but you can warp only 50 energy version anywhere on the map.
Warpgate is just pure goto tech, there's no choice, price or decision involved. Which is why the warpgate tech is wrong. In RTS everything is supposed to have some impact, some price or decision behind it. Warpgate doesn't fit to this. Its only price is blocking a useless building and cost is 50/50, which isn't so big deal.
On February 18 2015 07:43 KeksX wrote: RTS unit design IS a rational thought process. If they just implemented random things and yolo'd their way through it, we'd have something like Age Of Empires 3 or Command & Conquer(funnily enough Browder worked on a title of that series, and you can see his influence on the game is actually kinda like that. C&C sometimes actually felt like a yolo-game in some regards).
RTS Unit design is a complex process. Just look at the new units suggestions from Kim and Browder @ HotS and now LotV. They all justify units by stating problems they're there to solve.
Initial unit design is mostly influenced, as you said, by lore and past iterations. But it's also based on gameplay goals (there was this very specific feeling they wanted to copy from Brood War, they could've gone for the Age of Empires approach as well but they didn't) ... They're a game company that designs RTS games. Creating those games is a, not completely for obvious reasons but at least partially, rational process. ... Thats why we have patches. Nobody expects them to predict the future, the problem here is that Blizzard is not willing to invest into deeper cuts and changes in the gameplay. They only play around with the mechanics currently there.
I don't know, I think it's a too simplistic way of thinking. Essentially what you have done is to look at some aspect of a unit and determine whether it's a plus or a minus and then deduce that Blizzard has somehow quantified how much this aspect makes the unit differ from some norm and then they added just the right counter measures in terms of adjusting other aspects.
But Blizzard doesn't always notice these things, they're not always competent, they can't always predict the future, they're often constrained by business decisions, by having to balance for various skill levels, and it's not always possible to quantify these aspects, and it's not always obvious that units need to be balanced to a certain standard because e.g. BW was perfectly fine with siege tanks being very powerful.
Like, it's useful to note that warpgate makes gateway units more powerful in a certain way, so that's why e.g. it makes sense to have an early game spellcaster since that unit doesn't benefit from being warped in offensively because it lacks the energy, so that's why the sentry is a natural addition to the design of warpgate. But it's only mildly useful, it helps you understand how the game works independently of Blizzard's interventions, but it doesn't necessarily help you make sense of Blizzard's design decisions since those are more mysterious and random.
I just think that too often design discussions seemingly merge the actual designers, with all their flaws, with some omnipotent design force or whatever. And specifically it leads to issues like these discussions where people come up with suggestions that simply aren't tailored to the intended respondent: Blizzard. As an example, meaningful design change has more often happened because of reddit temper tantrums than brilliant analyses of the game.
On February 18 2015 19:23 deacon.frost wrote: I still don't understand why there is no disadvantage of having warp gates. For example we can buff units made from gateways.
Eg> Khaydarin Amulet disappears when the templar is warped in, but the templar has it if he is produced(well, warped, but you know, it is confusing, right?) from gateway. Therefore you can have 75 energy templars, but you can warp only 50 energy version anywhere on the map.
Warpgate is just pure goto tech, there's no choice, price or decision involved. Which is why the warpgate tech is wrong. In RTS everything is supposed to have some impact, some price or decision behind it. Warpgate doesn't fit to this. Its only price is blocking a useless building and cost is 50/50, which isn't so big deal.
Compare it to stim, it's "natural" for marines to have stim but they can't start off with it because that would make them too OP. It's the same with WG.
On February 18 2015 13:33 Obsidian wrote: I would like a modified version of the Panther from the WoL campaign. Make it either Tech Lab Barracks or no-tech Factory produceable, with an active ability that lets them pounce for some aoe. More fun if they will be able to pounce up/down ledges.
Moderately fast akin to charge-lots, but without the charge.
On February 18 2015 19:23 deacon.frost wrote: I still don't understand why there is no disadvantage of having warp gates. For example we can buff units made from gateways.
Eg> Khaydarin Amulet disappears when the templar is warped in, but the templar has it if he is produced(well, warped, but you know, it is confusing, right?) from gateway. Therefore you can have 75 energy templars, but you can warp only 50 energy version anywhere on the map.
Warpgate is just pure goto tech, there's no choice, price or decision involved. Which is why the warpgate tech is wrong. In RTS everything is supposed to have some impact, some price or decision behind it. Warpgate doesn't fit to this. Its only price is blocking a useless building and cost is 50/50, which isn't so big deal.
Compare it to stim, it's "natural" for marines to have stim but they can't start off with it because that would make them too OP. It's the same with WG.
Exactly. That's why both upgrades takes really long to research (IIRC Stim: 170s, WG: 140s). So in a way you can "nerf" units in specific winodw of time by increasing crucial research build time. The unit gains its' whole potential later in the game. That's why I suggested few post earlier to "increase" build time of WG and compensate it by stronger Gateway units. That way gateway units become lesser threat in early game (when they are strong) and become stronger mid/late game (when they are weaker)
Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released.
Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch.
They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now:
1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain.
The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest.
EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have.
On February 18 2015 20:48 BluzMan wrote: Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released.
Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch.
They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now:
1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain.
The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest.
EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have.
@BluzMan You just pointed the real point of Warpgate: there is no real option to go Gateway play other than 2-gate cheese (which is indeed a timing question). Warpgate should be a different level of tech (possibly at twilight level), with almost same functionality but with build times being slightly longer to warpgate units to its Gateway version, so Gateway play production > Warpgate play production, solving the all-in potential, the PvZ soultrain, the early game weakness until MSC, and solving the PvP Stalker shit (the defending player would have production advatage by using Gateway instead of Warpgate). With that, even Warpgate all-ins (Blink all-in and even some kind of Chargelot cheese) would be viable. Another added advantage would be that one could spend more Chronoboosts on tech units or upgrades considerating that WG time could be cut down. A posible downside is lategame strength and production, however that should not be a problema to Toss...
In my opinion, complete dependance on an upgrade early game (WG) to simply play on par with other races is a design fail.
With the new economy type in LotV, actual timings shouldn't matter to balance, so we could rethink them a bit, but I'm almost sure that Protoss would be balanced with that change (And I'm a Toss).... Close attenton to MSC though. Is not that hard to figure that out imao. Even within the actual meta, with slightly longer to build pylons (30s) 2-gate would stay in balance.
On February 18 2015 20:48 BluzMan wrote: Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released.
Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch.
They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now:
1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain.
The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest.
EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have.
Good post, i agree completely. The problem is that these things are known since forever and blizzard just doesn't want to fix it (maybe they simply can't, whatever). I mean i really like sc2, i enjoy it for the most part, but i know it could be better with some rather "simple" changes and that knowledge hurts haha
30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach.
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach.
That wouldn't be a big deal if there wouldn't be any blobs. I am actually not sure how smart units in sc2 target stuff when amoving, do they waste shots or do they target pretty efficiently?
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach.
I'm sorry, what's the problem with the upgrades in that example?
Edit: Oh I see, you mean that fights theoretically end even faster in lategame due to upgrades alone and regardless of army size, is that it? In any case 1 more shot doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach.
That wouldn't be a big deal if there wouldn't be any blobs. I am actually not sure how smart units in sc2 target stuff when amoving, do they waste shots or do they target pretty efficiently?
it depends on the type of unit, marines don't waste shots, stalkers do, for example
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach.
That wouldn't be a big deal if there wouldn't be any blobs. I am actually not sure how smart units in sc2 target stuff when amoving, do they waste shots or do they target pretty efficiently?
it depends on the type of unit, marines don't waste shots, stalkers do, for example
Yeah makes sense, that's at least something right :D I still hope Blizzard will try a different pathing, something like the starbow one would be already a nice step
Warpgate being flat out better than Gateways is what limits a lot of Protoss potential. Nerfing warp-in isn't the way to go. To make the race more diverse, Gateways have to be the main production facility (being faster, thus more economical). Warpgates should come with a drawback (longer total production time, for example). This does NOT remove Warpgate from the game. What it does do, however, is make Protoss all-ins considerably weaker as time goes on. We can balance the units taking reinforcement time into account, which gives space for Gateway units to be buffed. Protoss can then decide to go for one large surge of units ONCE, but the prolonged all in is weaker. Additionally, this allows changing or removal of Photon Overcharge (both PvP and PvT) and Forcefield as the Protoss army itself can be much stronger without relying on building walls and poorly designed spells.
The main argument against buffing Gateway Tech (preferably buff Gateway production speed only when Warpgate Research is done, as to not force nerfs to gateway units in early game) is that "Warpgate is a core mechanic of Protoss and it's cool and fun". Well. Warpgate doesn't leave, but now, teleporting your units all the way across the map comes at a cost instead of being the preferable way to go at all times. Additionally, it forces Protoss to position well to defend against Drops and Mutalisk AND allows slight nerfs to Emergency Chargers and Mutalisk. As a last bonus, it really weakens the prolonged Warp Prism Warp In harassment that abuses the Zerg main ramp or Terran Production Mechanics.
Lategame, it's as if nothing changed. Protoss can now afford the additional Mineral cost of building extra Warpgates to compensate for the longer production time.
To summarize: Once Warpgate Research is completed, Gateways are still the faster/more effective way to produce units. Getting the ability to teleport comes at the cost of a significantly longer Warpgate cooldown. Overall: Gateway units can be buffed to account for much longer reinforcement time and not being teleportable at no cost. Early Game: Room to remove Overcharge (Defenders Advantage for Protoss). Protoss units are slightly stronger. Possible changes to Forcefields (HP/Time reduction) because Gateway Tech trades more efficiently now. Mid Game: Room to nerf Emergency Boosters and Mutalisk, Protoss can now split the army up much better to accommodate the new more spread-out economy, doesn't rely on Collosi/HT tech as much. Late Game: Protoss can decide to compensate for this change by building a couple additional Warp Gates to compensate for the longer cooldown.
Additional Gateway Tech ideas: A stronger fighter (DRAGOON PLZ) and change the Stalker to be even more about mobility and harassment! And change Charge to a Movement Speed Boost. TADAM. Fixed Race ^_^
In all seriousness, please let me know what you think of this
TLDR Change Warpgate to have a significantly longer cooldown than Gateways. This allows for buffing to Gateway Tech (defenders advantage becomes a thing). Warpgate can be used for it's frontloadedness, but prolonged all ins lose longevity. Better gateway units allow for nerfs to Medivac Boosters/Mutalisk and allow the army to fight when split up. Lategame, building more Warpgates compensates for the longer production time. Protoss doesn't lose it's "core/fun/cool/racedefining" mechanic but it isn't a brainless decision.
This discussion about protoss warpgate mecanism being one of the major problems of sc2 is so right, but so WOL beta too . Guys this has been discussed for years now, blizzard kept saying they wouldn't do anything regarding this subject, and nothing was announced for lotv. For myself I just lost faith, we will keep seeing ugly things like corruptors/vikings hard countering colossus and being useless afterward, ridiculous mass CC/mules late game, insta zerg maxout or the so called 300/200 zerg pop, and the never dying 4 gates allins...
On February 19 2015 01:48 tamino wrote: This discussion about protoss warpgate mecanism being one of the major problems of sc2 is so right, but so WOL beta too . Guys this has been discussed for years now, blizzard kept saying they wouldn't do anything regarding this subject, and nothing was announced for lotv. For myself I just lost faith, we well keep seeing ugly things like corruptors/vikings hard countering colossus and being useless afterward, ridiculous mass CC/mules late game, insta zerg maxout or the so called 300/200 zerg pop, and the never dying 4 gates allins...
Yea! Those 4 Gate all-ins! So problematic! What year are we in?
On February 19 2015 01:54 ZAiNs wrote: Yea! Those 4 Gate all-ins! So problematic! What year are we in?
Of course its not like its a big damn issue like in the old days, but it's still a viable build with some adjustments made and I find it so ridiculous... But agreed you dont see it often anymore on pro level. Its just funny such a no brain build (not no skill, but no brain) is still around after such a long time. Obviously it wasnt the main part of my post, but it is heavily related to warp gate, and look at how many changes were needed to try to solve it .
Someone on reddit brought up an interesting idea. Would there be any room for new buildings in LotV? The tech tree as far as we know has been untouched.
On February 19 2015 02:12 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Someone on reddit brought up an interesting idea. Would there be any room for new buildings in LotV? The tech tree as far as we know has been untouched.
Well, the Lurker Den or whatever they'll call it will be a new building, won't it?
I like where LotV is going now. I wasn't that impressed about what they showed at the beginning. I think the changes are good.The new Protoss unit sounds interesting aswell.
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote: It seems to be LotV is heading towards more moba-like micro centric units rather than overall macro and strats.
That isn't bad but it sure feels like it.
If this is the case then its a good thing, but please do not compare micro to MOBA. Its an insult. If SC2 was WC3 just with a higher unit cap, then game would have been amazing.
On February 19 2015 00:52 SC2Toastie wrote: TLDR Change Warpgate to have a significantly longer cooldown than Gateways. This allows for buffing to Gateway Tech (defenders advantage becomes a thing). Warpgate can be used for it's frontloadedness, but prolonged all ins lose longevity. Better gateway units allow for nerfs to Medivac Boosters/Mutalisk and allow the army to fight when split up. Lategame, building more Warpgates compensates for the longer production time. Protoss doesn't lose it's "core/fun/cool/racedefining" mechanic but it isn't a brainless decision.
I still completely disagree that warping in is the core/fun/cool/racedefining mechanic. The only reason people feel that way is, like you said, it's practically an upgrade protoss HAS to get to win reliably. It's just something so essential and important for Protoss that people FEEL it's what defines protoss, but the matter of fact is Protoss didn't need that to feel like Protoss in Brood War, and it's not what people talk about when you ask them "what is Protoss?". I sadly don't have a questionnaire right now for that, but whenever I talk about Protoss with people the consensus is "lasers, technology, psy abilities, stronger but fewer units, lots of micro potential for each individual unit". Depending on skill level of the player it's a litle different, but those are the most mentioned things.
I think that our thinking of "What defines a race?", or rather Blizzard's thinking of it, is what prevents most of the changes. In Blizzard's eye, Protoss is the warping in oneway race, Zerg is the free unit race that needs creep to win, and Terran is the race that sits on front of the enemy's base shooting stuff 24/7. Thats not a very fun way of defining the races. (Note: That is my interpretation of their definitions, but things like "free units" are what Browder talks about when he talks about whether or not something feels "Zergy")
As someone looking at Lore and Brood War mainly, neither Swarm Hosts nor Brood Lords feely zergy to me. Lurkers do, and Mutalisks, Zerglings and Banelings feel very zergy. Those are the kind of units I talk about when people ask me "so what does Zerg have?".
So I think we're stuck with these weird race-definitions that are completely flawed and seem to lead the design team into a mostly wrong direction. It's surprising that they didn't think of another "free units"-unit for zerg. Maybe a Swarm Host Host. Free Units are zergy, right?
I might want removal of attack and armor upgrades for LotV. It's a really archaic mechanic that's seemingly never questioned, but what specifically does it add to the game outside of possibly undesirable complexity?
To be fair, I do think free units feel pretty zergy, but free units have so many bad design implications that I find the game much better off without them. You can bring out the zerg feel without shoehorning a free unit ability on them, and I'm hoping Blizzard realizes that and cuts down on the abilities that do so.
I fully agree on the warp gate thing though. Protoss have gone 10+ years in SC1/BW just fine without warpgates, and never needed them to feel protoss. In all honesty, I dislike warpgates because they actually weaken what I feel is the number one defining feature of the protoss, which is that they're the "high tech, very powerful but expensive" race. Gateway units don't trade well at all unless backed up by silly abilities and warp-in as a crutch, which to me doesn't feel "very powerful" at all.
On February 19 2015 02:57 Grumbels wrote: I might want removal of attack and armor upgrades for LotV. It's a really archaic mechanic that's seemingly never questioned, but what specifically does it add to the game outside of possibly undesirable complexity?
Generally it allows people that, for whatever reason, have less or the same economy as the opponent to still get a better army . Example is that if Protoss can't get a third, that cuts into his general unit production a lot. By investing a few resources into upgrades he compensates for that a bit. They also create a new type of timing attack that would otherwise not exist(same production as before, just better units; usually it's just new production buildings -> first wave of units).
It also creates a mechanic to have "the same, but better" units in mirror matches.
On February 19 2015 02:59 Spawkuring wrote: To be fair, I do think free units feel pretty zergy, but free units have so many bad design implications that I find the game much better off without them. You can bring out the zerg feel without shoehorning a free unit ability on them, and I'm hoping Blizzard realizes that and cuts down on the abilities that do so.
I fully agree on the warp gate thing though. Protoss have gone 10+ years in SC1/BW just fine without warpgates, and never needed them to feel protoss. In all honesty, I dislike warpgates because they actually weaken what I feel is the number one defining feature of the protoss, which is that they're the "high tech, very powerful but expensive" race. Gateway units don't trade well at all unless backed up by silly abilities and warp-in as a crutch, which to me doesn't feel "very powerful" at all.
This so much. Because of Warpgates, Protoss units feel like a crystal canon instead of powerful, high-tech units.
On February 19 2015 02:12 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Someone on reddit brought up an interesting idea. Would there be any room for new buildings in LotV? The tech tree as far as we know has been untouched.
Well, the Lurker Den or whatever they'll call it will be a new building, won't it?
Arguably I guess. Come to think of it, this would mean that the Lurker upgrade isn't absolutely permanent so that sniping the Lurker Den would force a player to start over from a Hydra Den. That's definitely a departure from Brood War.
On February 18 2015 14:24 Estancia wrote: - Buff gateway units - Remove forcefield - Rework warp gate
Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff.
How about making Warp Gate warp in units w/o shields at all, sounds like it would partially solve the problem of strong All-ins* and it sure is less clunky than that "takes double dmg during warp-in cycle"-"solution"
* as after being warped in 5-10 seconds before entering a fight (=close warp-inpylon) Units would still have ~40 less shields aka 25-33% less hp when compared to waiting/producing normally. It would need around 25-30 seconds to regen to full shields for most GW-units, which is abit less time than walking across the map.
On February 19 2015 02:57 Grumbels wrote: I might want removal of attack and armor upgrades for LotV. It's a really archaic mechanic that's seemingly never questioned, but what specifically does it add to the game outside of possibly undesirable complexity?
Generally it allows people that, for whatever reason, have less or the same economy as the opponent to still get a better army . Example is that if Protoss can't get a third, that cuts into his general unit production a lot. By investing a few resources into upgrades he compensates for that a bit. They also create a new type of timing attack that would otherwise not exist(same production as before, just better units; usually it's just new production buildings -> first wave of units).
It also creates a mechanic to have "the same, but better" units in mirror matches.
Upgrades are an important thing, imho.
But generic plus-attack upgrades just seem lazy. They more strongly force you into certain tech paths (might be necessary for zerg though) and they make timings inscrutable, especially for new players that have to wonder about the paltry performances of their armies. They also add kinda pointless buildings to the game and they don't seem that inspiring in terms of effect, especially next to upgrades like metabolic boost or combat shield that have visually obvious impacts. It strikes me as the kind of mechanic that clearly dates to the origins of rts games, and just like single-building selection and such it has had its place but should probably be replaced by something that has the same beneficial effects but which is more specifically tailored to modern day expectations.
I also think that strategic complexity is a double-edged sword in SC2 since it's so difficult to recover from a deficit based on picking the wrong build order, which is mostly something you deal with in-between games, so it's not as fun. Personally I associate upgrades with that kind of thinking, but I'll admit I can't tell precisely. Anyhow, it seems like a worthwhile idea to test, imo.
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
Heh, looks like they're already about to drop the idea of slowing down attack speed. No surprise as that was a dumb idea in the first place.
Still pretty annoying that they won't tweak unit pathing. I can guarantee that whatever pathing change they tested out in the past was half-assed and didn't address what people want anyway. Not to mention that addressing unit clumping isn't some panacea that will solve all of SC2's problems. It's just one of the many factors that need to be addressed to stop deathballing.
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
Heh, looks like they're already about to drop the idea of slowing down attack speed. No surprise as that was a dumb idea in the first place.
Still pretty annoying that they won't tweak unit pathing. I can guarantee that whatever pathing change they tested out in the past was half-assed and didn't address what people want anyway. Not to mention that addressing unit clumping isn't some panacea that will solve all of SC2's problems. It's just one of the many factors that need to be addressed to stop deathballing.
afaik they tested out units always staying in formations by raising some magic box radius or something like that, which is obviously not the proper approach
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
Heh, looks like they're already about to drop the idea of slowing down attack speed. No surprise as that was a dumb idea in the first place.
Still pretty annoying that they won't tweak unit pathing. I can guarantee that whatever pathing change they tested out in the past was half-assed and didn't address what people want anyway. Not to mention that addressing unit clumping isn't some panacea that will solve all of SC2's problems. It's just one of the many factors that need to be addressed to stop deathballing.
40% reduction in attack speed is ridiculous. Since LotV is going to completely change balance anyway, Blizzard should mess with damage values instead. Of course, there are more drastic measures that many of us prefer, but it does not seem like they are willing.
Blizzard should really look at the unit damage types. SC2 has damage bonuses, whereas BW has damage types that, in general, reduce the amount dealt.
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
greatly disappointed by this :/ i really wanna know what the negative effects are, other than that they have to balance aoe differently if such a change would get through...
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
I'm pretty sure they won't bring out any major changes in mechanics because every time they'll try they'll be afraid of what they're doing.
Blizz's timidness is a factor, but another issue is that their ideas just aren't very good. I mean let's look at LotV, and how the biggest changes are just trying to make the units introduced in HotS work. In fact, the entire HotS patch timeline was trying to keep their new units from shitting the bed, and some of those new units (swarm host, tempest) have to literally be reworked. As for the LotV units themselves, we've already lost the Herc, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see the cyclone and disruptor put on the chopping block as well. The SC2 team needs a better "idea guy".
On February 19 2015 06:58 Dingodile wrote: well banelings are very useless without clumping. AoE less dangerous too. Maybe not every unit should have clumping path.
Yeah as i said, they would need to rebalance aoe, but if that is the negative aspect they are talking about.... I don't know, it's just lazy :/
I just wished they'd stop testing these things internally and put out Call To Action maps instead
"Yeah so we tested it with some bronze guys, they said it didn't change anything so nope". Not saying that thats what Blizzard is doing, but for all that we know they take two interns off of WoW and make them play the game. Just in general, the more people testing, the better the testing results.
Little transparency, little will to experiment, I don't like the looks of this
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
Heh, looks like they're already about to drop the idea of slowing down attack speed. No surprise as that was a dumb idea in the first place.
Still pretty annoying that they won't tweak unit pathing. I can guarantee that whatever pathing change they tested out in the past was half-assed and didn't address what people want anyway. Not to mention that addressing unit clumping isn't some panacea that will solve all of SC2's problems. It's just one of the many factors that need to be addressed to stop deathballing.
40% reduction in attack speed is ridiculous. Since LotV is going to completely change balance anyway, Blizzard should mess with damage values instead. Of course, there are more drastic measures that many of us prefer, but it does not seem like they are willing.
Blizzard should really look at the unit damage types. SC2 has damage bonuses, whereas BW has damage types that, in general, reduce the amount dealt.
There is really not a lot of difference in between those. Whether your Dragoon does 10 (+5vs armored, +10vs massive) or your dragoon does 20 (-5vs medium, -10vs big) is mostly a way of formulating things. The Broodwar system makes it so that the units are harder to tweak (you can't only nerf the damage a dragoon does vs medium, without either influencing its damage vs big/small too; or without changing all other units with explosive damage values). But they are a little more consistent to learn since you can predict which unit your unit is good against, just from knowing the damage type. (He has Ultras, so getting something with explosive is probably good)
But in the end it comes down to your arbitrary unit designs and interactions anyways. 20damage can be high or low depending on your opponent's health values.
Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
"Well, LotV is finally out, good work boys. Now let's all get back to Heroes"
"But boss, shouldn't we have someone keep working on SC2?"
On February 18 2015 07:54 coolman123123 wrote: I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF.
Any spell which limits the movement of the opposing forces is a terrible design concept because the losing side cannot "fall back" strategically. This is more than just a map design problem; it fundamentally interferes with what RTS game should be all about.
I don't think the problem is movement limiting spells as such, but rather its prevalence. I think they ARE the more frustrating spells to deal with. For that reason, if they are included (and I think there are strategic reasons for putting movement limiting spells into RTS') then it is essential to limit how often they are used. This could be through unit cost or cooldown or through mechanical requirements
In older RTS' if such spells existed they would be limited to late game units and was furthermore limited by who quickly you could cast the spells. The combination of low tier movement limiters (sentries) and smart-casting increases the prevalence of these spells during the game. This makes a frustrating spell more irritating. You get the same thing in games like League of Legends. crowd-control spells- slows and stuns have their place in the game. But an individual game can become very frustrating when the opponent's team has a large number of slow and stun abilities. You are more likely to here complaints and such simply due to the prevalence.
You cant say every spell that limits movement is terrible. As Brood war is often referenced, the arbiter stasis ability can trap large groups of units actually allowing for interesting tactics.
Or even the marauders concussive shell, removing that would make protoss gateway units stronger to a point where terran has a much more difficult time.
You can not just make blanket statements, everything is connected.
On February 19 2015 11:19 xxjcdentonxx wrote: that stupid video said that they removed ranked play in lotv? sounds completely made up but can someone explain what they were talking about?
Actual kinda translation
He's telling a story when he used to work in a restaurant. He left a "paella pan" at the beach and was asked by the cook to go take it, but when he arrived there the tide was high and he had to swim to find it...
On February 19 2015 11:19 xxjcdentonxx wrote: that stupid video said that they removed ranked play in lotv? sounds completely made up but can someone explain what they were talking about?
It was about the common Bug that ranked play appeared locked.
On February 19 2015 11:19 xxjcdentonxx wrote: that stupid video said that they removed ranked play in lotv? sounds completely made up but can someone explain what they were talking about?
He's telling a story when he used to work in a restaurant. He left a "paella pan" at the beach and was asked by the cook to go take it, but when he arrived there the tide was high and he had to swim to find it...
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote: It seems to be LotV is heading towards more moba-like micro centric units rather than overall macro and strats.
That isn't bad but it sure feels like it.
If this is the case then its a good thing, but please do not compare micro to MOBA. Its an insult. If SC2 was WC3 just with a higher unit cap, then game would have been amazing.
I always laugh when I hear the word "micro" in the context of a MOBA. There is no micro in a MOBA, simply because there is no macro. Can't have the one without the other. Sure, talk about "control" or "mechanics" or "skill" all you want, but it's sad that the word "micro" was translated into the MOBA world... "Micro" is cool and skilful when you have many other things to do, like in particular act on a bigger scale, i.e. "macro". It's way more impressive to see a player control his units and then realize that all this time, he was still producing units, expanding and upgrading, rather than watch a third-rate foreigner micro the shit out of his probe to block a hatch only to delay his own nexus for 30 seconds...
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote: It seems to be LotV is heading towards more moba-like micro centric units rather than overall macro and strats.
That isn't bad but it sure feels like it.
If this is the case then its a good thing, but please do not compare micro to MOBA. Its an insult. If SC2 was WC3 just with a higher unit cap, then game would have been amazing.
Never for a higher cap in wc3. low number of units and very micro based is its beauty. Remove tomeofexperience and mana regeneration item and a small fix on blademaster and it would be a perfect game. I really loved to micro my ~28 units and the control of 8 buttons. Impossible with Zerg because of Queens and buildings.
I still consider that TvZ in sc2 have too much units in 200supply. I really dislike that zerglings and marines are 1supply thing. double their strength and life and 2supply would be much much better I think.
On February 19 2015 01:48 tamino wrote: This discussion about protoss warpgate mecanism being one of the major problems of sc2 is so right, but so WOL beta too . Guys this has been discussed for years now, blizzard kept saying they wouldn't do anything regarding this subject, and nothing was announced for lotv. For myself I just lost faith, we will keep seeing ugly things like corruptors/vikings hard countering colossus and being useless afterward, ridiculous mass CC/mules late game, insta zerg maxout or the so called 300/200 zerg pop, and the never dying 4 gates allins...
On February 19 2015 01:54 ZAiNs wrote: Yea! Those 4 Gate all-ins! So problematic! What year are we in?
Of course its not like its a big damn issue like in the old days, but it's still a viable build with some adjustments made and I find it so ridiculous... But agreed you dont see it often anymore on pro level. Its just funny such a no brain build (not no skill, but no brain) is still around after such a long time. Obviously it wasnt the main part of my post, but it is heavily related to warp gate, and look at how many changes were needed to try to solve it .
And I play protoss.
Wasn't that hard to guess that u play Protoss. Otherwise u'd mentioned other huge flaws. Anyways, what I dislike - and that's why I also have been liking the Idea of Warpgate-Gateway-Dualism - is the fact that in some cases players are forced to get a certain upgrade. Otherwise they can't compete, e.g. Warpgate, Stimpack (at least u decide if u wanna get CS or Stim first, but still), Siege-Upgrade in WoL, etc.
Looks like changes in unit clumping are off the table
Heh, looks like they're already about to drop the idea of slowing down attack speed. No surprise as that was a dumb idea in the first place.
Still pretty annoying that they won't tweak unit pathing. I can guarantee that whatever pathing change they tested out in the past was half-assed and didn't address what people want anyway. Not to mention that addressing unit clumping isn't some panacea that will solve all of SC2's problems. It's just one of the many factors that need to be addressed to stop deathballing.
40% reduction in attack speed is ridiculous. Since LotV is going to completely change balance anyway, Blizzard should mess with damage values instead. Of course, there are more drastic measures that many of us prefer, but it does not seem like they are willing.
Blizzard should really look at the unit damage types. SC2 has damage bonuses, whereas BW has damage types that, in general, reduce the amount dealt.
There is really not a lot of difference in between those. Whether your Dragoon does 10 (+5vs armored, +10vs massive) or your dragoon does 20 (-5vs medium, -10vs big) is mostly a way of formulating things. The Broodwar system makes it so that the units are harder to tweak (you can't only nerf the damage a dragoon does vs medium, without either influencing its damage vs big/small too; or without changing all other units with explosive damage values). But they are a little more consistent to learn since you can predict which unit your unit is good against, just from knowing the damage type. (He has Ultras, so getting something with explosive is probably good)
But in the end it comes down to your arbitrary unit designs and interactions anyways. 20damage can be high or low depending on your opponent's health values.
There are also a number of other differences in the way how sc2 damage system works compared to Bw that makes it inferior to the Bw damage system ( for example how armor gets applied). The only advantage I grant the sc2 sytem is the increased flexibility of their dmg system when it comes to an interaction of a specific unit type.
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote: It seems to be LotV is heading towards more moba-like micro centric units rather than overall macro and strats.
That isn't bad but it sure feels like it.
If this is the case then its a good thing, but please do not compare micro to MOBA. Its an insult. If SC2 was WC3 just with a higher unit cap, then game would have been amazing.
Never for a higher cap in wc3. low number of units and very micro based is its beauty. Remove tomeofexperience and mana regeneration item and a small fix on blademaster and it would be a perfect game. I really loved to micro my ~28 units and the control of 8 buttons. Impossible with Zerg because of Queens and buildings..
I played UD and staying at 50 food to bank gold vs some noob Orc player who could do whatever the hell he wanted was really bad gameplay imo. A higher food cap and scaled upkeep would have balanced that matchup at least. UD units, although having alot of utility, are weak individually but begin to scale absurdly well in numbers. That's why Coil/Nova is such a game ender when backed by micro, why mass Fiends/Frenzied Ghouls/Destro totally wrecks players and why NecroWagon is a niche but extremely dangerous strat in 4's RT and FFA.
A higher food cap would have made expansions a little more prevalent rather than something reserved for Human macro game or manner Night Elves who just wanted to piss you off. Undead expos were awful outside of 3's/4's not only because they were expensive to protect (can't TP to it for instance), but also because UD never had ability to go above 50 food to have a large standing army that deterred attacks anyway. UD units are damn expensive also... Seriously, Lucifer/Believe/or some UD pro said this:
"You can smoke, you can drink, you can take drugs. But never play Undead"
The UD army is the fastest army in the game, but we had the least amount of units due to this bullshit.
Higher cap --> scaled upkeep --> Expansions more important and accessible --> UD not getting wreaked constantly by higher food armies.
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote:I still consider that TvZ in sc2 have too much units in 200supply. I really dislike that zerglings and marines are 1supply thing. double their strength and life and 2supply would be much much better I think.
I can't say I disagree with that. Sounds like a good thing in my opinion and it would make engagements more entertaining and longer played out.
And damn, this post made me really miss WC3. Gonna play it tonight!
I played UD too. I know that Orc is pretty damn strong against UD BUT until 50supply. UD biggest problem (vs Orc) is the expansion and the try to have 50+ supply. Orc's main job is trying to avoid it and stay at 50 supply forever. Just in case, UD is much much stronger in the 100 vs 100 supply fights vs Orc if Heroes lvl arent too differently. No big expansion problems vs NE and HU.
On February 19 2015 21:45 Dingodile wrote: I played UD too. I know that Orc is pretty damn strong against UD BUT until 50supply. UD biggest problem (vs Orc) is the expansion and the try to have 50+ supply. Orc's main job is trying to avoid it and stay at 50 supply forever. Just in case, UD is much much stronger in the 100 vs 100 supply fights vs Orc if Heroes lvl arent too differently. No big expansion problems vs NE and HU.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but im genuinely curious, what do you think DOES Blizzard have with SC2? What do you think is its potential for the company? Because I dont see it anymore.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but im genuinely curious, what do you think DOES Blizzard have with SC2? What do you think is its potential for the company? Because I dont see it anymore.
If LotV is great, that would ensure Blizzard a total monopoly for the 10 next years over one of the most fundamental genres of e-sports. And who knows, maybe the MOBA frenzy won't last after all.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but im genuinely curious, what do you think DOES Blizzard have with SC2? What do you think is its potential for the company? Because I dont see it anymore.
If LotV is great, that would ensure Blizzard a total monopoly for the 10 next years over one of the most fundamental genres of e-sports. And who knows, maybe the MOBA frenzy won't last after all.
The most fundamental genre with an exact total of one popular game?
Blizzard is still invested in LOTV, it's their companies reputation and their biggest brand. Fucking this up means WC4 isn't takes seriously. Also, who invest tons of money into development if you - don't - care?
On February 19 2015 21:45 Dingodile wrote: I played UD too. I know that Orc is pretty damn strong against UD BUT until 50supply. UD biggest problem (vs Orc) is the expansion and the try to have 50+ supply. Orc's main job is trying to avoid it and stay at 50 supply forever. Just in case, UD is much much stronger in the 100 vs 100 supply fights vs Orc if Heroes lvl arent too differently. No big expansion problems vs NE and HU.
Are we discussing WC3:Legacy of the Void?
Not too far-fetched considering all the WC3 models that they've added to the SC2 map editor, but just on the PTR for now. The Arcade is hopefully gonna get real crazy once those carry over to the base game.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but im genuinely curious, what do you think DOES Blizzard have with SC2? What do you think is its potential for the company? Because I dont see it anymore.
If LotV is great, that would ensure Blizzard a total monopoly for the 10 next years over one of the most fundamental genres of e-sports. And who knows, maybe the MOBA frenzy won't last after all.
The most fundamental genre with an exact total of one popular game?
Blizzard is still invested in LOTV, it's their companies reputation and their biggest brand. Fucking this up means WC4 isn't takes seriously. Also, who invest tons of money into development if you - don't - care?
Well RTS is one of the founding genres of e-sports. The number of games currently played doesn't matter.
I disagree with the notion that Blizzard is seeking to monopolize the RTS market, as well as the underlying argument that Blizzard views StarCraft 2 as its most recognizable game. It seems very apparent to me Warcraft, in its many forms, is by far Blizzard's most iconic image as well as its largest source of revenue.
The SC2 business model is inferior to the World of Warcraft business model, among others, in that it is not a perpetual form of revenue and offers little incentive for users to invest additional capital into the game, aside from purchasing expansions every three years. A monthly subscription to online multiplayer isn't the answer, but there are more elegant solutions like add-ons and customization which have already proven highly profitable in MOBA's like League of Legends (which, coupled with its immensely superior viewership, clearly indicate MOBA's are the more attractive product and it is no wonder Blizzard is investing more of its resources into development of Heroes of the Storm).
Exacerbating this sad state of affairs (from the perspective of an RTS-lover) is the fact Blizzard is unwilling to humbly accept its gross missteps in initial game development, issues which were largely hidden in the early stages of Wings of Liberty due to unfamiliarity, but were quickly unearthed in latter development and remain painfully in place today. Heart of the Swarm, after the initial appeal of new units had subsided, in my opinion became one of the most destructive expansions Blizzard has ever released. Instead of resolving some of the core issues with game design, Blizzard opted to maintain the status-quo while injecting novel units in an attempt to shift the metagame, some of which, like the Swarm Host and Oracle, did far more harm than good to an already extremely delicate state of balance and design. The status-quo, the incredibly stale and/or poorly designed gameplay, remains entirely intact and Legacy of the Void is shaping to be the final nail in the SC2 coffin.
On February 20 2015 03:19 always_winter wrote: Heart of the Swarm, after the initial appeal of new units had subsided, in my opinion became one of the most destructive expansions Blizzard has ever released. Instead of resolving some of the core issues with game design, Blizzard opted to maintain the status-quo while injecting novel units in an attempt to shift the metagame, some of which, like the Swarm Host and Oracle, did far more harm than good to an already extremely delicate state of balance and design. The status-quo, the incredibly stale and/or poorly designed gameplay, remains entirely intact and Legacy of the Void is shaping to be the final nail in the SC2 coffin.
Agree. And it's still happening : new units for little to no reason and blatant problems not being addressed. This is my main concern.
On February 19 2015 07:12 KeksX wrote: Well thats another point, I doubt they even have a big enough team on SC2 anymore to do any big changes. I guess Heroes Of The Storm is where all the money goes into right now.
It's hard not be pessimistic these days. I really hope Blizzard realizes what they have with SC2 and doesn't just let it slowly fade into oblivion after LotV.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but im genuinely curious, what do you think DOES Blizzard have with SC2? What do you think is its potential for the company? Because I dont see it anymore.
A game no one even TRIES to copy because of its complexity, a "sleeper fanbase" all over eSports that's just waiting for something big to happen, an already somewhat professional scene very very dedicated to the game together with a ton of diehard fans that will support the game forever and with all their money. (Potentially) the oldest eSports fanbase in all of eSports.
I think SC2 has the potential to be one of the , if not THHE most consistent eSports. People have watched and enjoyed the Starcraft franchise 15 years +/-.
Basically, it's potential is very similar to CS:GO which is currently without competition as well.
6. Mech is so weak in PvT. LotV solution: Immortal rework, adding the Cyclone.
7. Some units are not useful in lategame: Reaper. LotV solution: none.
So, LotV will make the game perfect. What are you afraid of? I think even the economy change is unnecessary. But the Scan Range is necessary one! So, just wait for Reaper change and it will be 101% perfect RTS of all time until SC3.
On February 18 2015 20:48 BluzMan wrote: Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released.
Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch.
They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now:
1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain.
The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest.
EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have.
@BluzMan You just pointed the real point of Warpgate: there is no real option to go Gateway play other than 2-gate cheese (which is indeed a timing question). Warpgate should be a different level of tech (possibly at twilight level), with almost same functionality but with build times being slightly longer to warpgate units to its Gateway version, so Gateway play production > Warpgate play production, solving the all-in potential, the PvZ soultrain, the early game weakness until MSC, and solving the PvP Stalker shit (the defending player would have production advatage by using Gateway instead of Warpgate). With that, even Warpgate all-ins (Blink all-in and even some kind of Chargelot cheese) would be viable. Another added advantage would be that one could spend more Chronoboosts on tech units or upgrades considerating that WG time could be cut down. A posible downside is lategame strength and production, however that should not be a problema to Toss...
In my opinion, complete dependance on an upgrade early game (WG) to simply play on par with other races is a design fail.
With the new economy type in LotV, actual timings shouldn't matter to balance, so we could rethink them a bit, but I'm almost sure that Protoss would be balanced with that change (And I'm a Toss).... Close attenton to MSC though. Is not that hard to figure that out imao. Even within the actual meta, with slightly longer to build pylons (30s) 2-gate would stay in balance.
Having longer production times for WG will not solve anything... You just need 1 more gateway Aka 150 minerals to compensate. With all the econony changes, that's a minor difference.
For me, GW and FF are fun and are part of what makes Protoss unique. They should not be removed. Having midgame units that break FF will make protoss even more defensive, in my opinion.
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
How do you explain TvZ being full of both harassment and army vs army action, without devolving into deathblobs?
Harassment has a lot to do with it, but I think it is mainly just that the unit interactions are much better in TvZ than in any other non-mirror matchup. You trade blow for blow, banelings for marines, mines for banelings, zerglings for mines, mutas for medivacs. Nothing ever comes without a real danger for the units involved. If you want to drop you know that your units are in severe risk of dying to mutalisks. Banelings don't kill units twice. Mines cooldown give zerg a lot of time to deal with the unit after it has activated. Marine speed and baneling speed have been intentionally designed in an extremely healthy relation to each other. Hellions wreck shit but also always take damage from queens and speedlings and roaches. And even when the dynamics aren't that good (like roach/hydra vs bio) there is still lots of unit trading involved.
There are very little things that trade energy for resources or outrange the enemy in such a severe way that it can kill stuff for free. This isn't the case with forcefields, blink, Colossi, Photon Overcharge, Time Warp and Storms. Protoss always trades nothing vs something at the start of their battles until they run out of their initial defenisve abilities and range advantages. This creates dynamics in which Protoss oppoents build overwhelming force to survive the phase in which you get nothing done against them, to then evaporte them in very few seconds. And Protoss needs overwhelming force of trading prevention to not let that happen. The TvZ matchup becomes much worse if it gets to a phase in which there are also a lot of these sorts of units involved (Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Broodlords, Vikings Ravens, Siege Tanks). In PvZ and TvZ T/Z also utilize many more of those free trading mechanics against Protoss (Ghost, Viking, Swarm Host, Viper) and Protoss is much worse at defending mobile forces which can make proper medivac/mutalisk usage also such a free trading mechanic. That doesn't mean that those mechanics are bad in general - they are very much needed to overcome turtle play - but if they become your core way of playing both people have a hard time getting stuff done.
I also think that a warp prism is too big of an investment for protoss to only harass, both in resources and in build time in the robotics facility. Terran can reuse medevacs in their core army, zerg does not even need that with speedlings. If the warp prism would be reusable in army vs army, less expensive and with shorter build times, we would see more games like TvZ with battles + harassment. The micro potential of the LotV WP is promising in army vs army situations, but buffs are needed to the cost and specially build time.
On February 17 2015 15:40 jinjin5000 wrote: It seems to be LotV is heading towards more moba-like micro centric units rather than overall macro and strats.
That isn't bad but it sure feels like it.
If this is the case then its a good thing, but please do not compare micro to MOBA. Its an insult. If SC2 was WC3 just with a higher unit cap, then game would have been amazing.
6. Mech is so weak in PvT. LotV solution: Immortal rework, adding the Cyclone.
7. Some units are not useful in lategame: Reaper. LotV solution: none.
So, LotV will make the game perfect. What are you afraid of? I think even the economy change is unnecessary. But the Scan Range is necessary one! So, just wait for Reaper change and it will be 101% perfect RTS of all time until SC3.
Chill guys, shake it off until the LotV!
Not sure if this is trolling or faith in humanity.
6. Mech is so weak in PvT. LotV solution: Immortal rework, adding the Cyclone.
7. Some units are not useful in lategame: Reaper. LotV solution: none.
So, LotV will make the game perfect. What are you afraid of? I think even the economy change is unnecessary. But the Scan Range is necessary one! So, just wait for Reaper change and it will be 101% perfect RTS of all time until SC3.
Chill guys, shake it off until the LotV!
Not sure if this is trolling or faith in humanity.
Almost no trolling there. I faith in successful company of talents, but not in paper theoretics.
6. Mech is so weak in PvT. LotV solution: Immortal rework, adding the Cyclone.
7. Some units are not useful in lategame: Reaper. LotV solution: none.
So, LotV will make the game perfect. What are you afraid of? I think even the economy change is unnecessary. But the Scan Range is necessary one! So, just wait for Reaper change and it will be 101% perfect RTS of all time until SC3.
Chill guys, shake it off until the LotV!
Not sure if this is trolling or faith in humanity.
6. Mech is so weak in PvT. LotV solution: Immortal rework, adding the Cyclone.
7. Some units are not useful in lategame: Reaper. LotV solution: none.
So, LotV will make the game perfect. What are you afraid of? I think even the economy change is unnecessary. But the Scan Range is necessary one! So, just wait for Reaper change and it will be 101% perfect RTS of all time until SC3.
Chill guys, shake it off until the LotV!
You left out that Protoss will still be a fundamentally badly designed race that isnt fun for anybody. We will see if the second new Toss unit will do something in that regard, but if its another gimmicky spell unit, then probably not.
It would be nice to speculate on how the dice will roll, but in the end all we can do is wait for something playable and get some concrete timings to work with. That being said I'm feeling disturbingly positive about these changes >=]
For LotV, I would like to see: - A unit that sends out lightning bolts (as in Diablo) - A lurker that can create huge, unsurpassable crevices - A melee viking (zealot with Viking-abilities) - Buildings that can beam to other places - A fast mega-transporter with 200 capacity and ultra-low health - A space ship that constantly clones itself (children clone as well) - A caterpillar for terran (just for decoration) - Different sorts of zerg creep (defensive/transport/healing) - The hero units from the SC2 campaigns - A protoss zerg-lab that can study zerg technology after capturing zerglings - A frost giant - An Ultra-ultralisk (Massive leader of the ultralisks)
On February 23 2015 02:12 SUPERFRANZ wrote: For LotV, I would like to see: - A unit that sends out lightning bolts (as in Diablo) - A lurker that can create huge, unsurpassable crevices - A melee viking (zealot with Viking-abilities) - Buildings that can beam to other places - A fast mega-transporter with 200 capacity and ultra-low health - A space ship that constantly clones itself (children clone as well) - A caterpillar for terran (just for decoration) - Different sorts of zerg creep (defensive/transport/healing) - The hero units from the SC2 campaigns - A protoss zerg-lab that can study zerg technology after capturing zerglings - A frost giant - An Ultra-ultralisk (Massive leader of the ultralisks)
Not sure if you are trolling or not, but all of these abilities are terrible.
On February 23 2015 02:12 SUPERFRANZ wrote: For LotV, I would like to see: - A unit that sends out lightning bolts (as in Diablo) - A lurker that can create huge, unsurpassable crevices - A melee viking (zealot with Viking-abilities) - Buildings that can beam to other places - A fast mega-transporter with 200 capacity and ultra-low health - A space ship that constantly clones itself (children clone as well) - A caterpillar for terran (just for decoration) - Different sorts of zerg creep (defensive/transport/healing) - The hero units from the SC2 campaigns - A protoss zerg-lab that can study zerg technology after capturing zerglings - A frost giant - An Ultra-ultralisk (Massive leader of the ultralisks)
Not sure if you are trolling or not, but all of these abilities are terrible.
SUPERFRANZ is probably David Kim's TL account. In all seriousness, yeah those suggestions are God awful.
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Arguing for the warpgate mechanic change at this point is like someone arguing to remove lift from terran buildings and making it an upgrade. Both will never happen.
"That will never happen" is not a good way of thinking when you want to change things d:
On February 18 2015 03:43 Lunareste wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:38 Tuczniak wrote:
On February 18 2015 03:26 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still complaining about gateway units/warpgate
Protoss units are large and typically low DPS
Gateway units are fine, they just scale poorly due to low damage output per surface area, so they need to be supported by AOE in later stages of the game
Current warpgate is the core design flaw of protoss. You will always end up discussing warpgate when talking about protoss design.
I'm not sure it will be as game-breaking in the future, however.
200% damage taken while warping in AND doubling the warp in time should have serious ramifications on counter play and map presence to stop the Protoss aggression before it ever really gets started, especially if Zerg begin to create combat units before the attack gets to their side of the map.
Not to mention that Warp Prism harass won't give nearly "guaranteed" damage anymore, at least not to the same degree it does now.
Well yeah that's the main thing now, they are nerfing warpgate so much that it loses most of its specifity/interest, and all P players will use warpgate as standard gates, warping in units at home. While we could have gateways to produce units, and the ability to turn them into warpgates with quick warp-in time and normal damage taken BUT with a significantly higher cooldown.
No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic.
If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming.
I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough.
What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker.
Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics.
I've also considered changes like these over the years, problem is it would make people proxy nexus everywhere :p on a more serious note, using "distance from buildings" as a variable creates small inconsistencies depending on map size. Imagine a very small map where protoss can warp in near their Natuarl and abuse rush distance/ fast unit warp in... now the"defensive" warp in is working as an all in booster... similar issues when people wanted to limit msc to only travel close to bases \Nexi
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers.
Taking the races one at a time:
ZERG:
Zerg have lacked options for a core mid game army for the entire of sc2. Zerg relies on low tier units such as the roach, zergling and baneling, for too long, past the point where they are a good return on investment. The zerg player tends to struggle when the terran or protoss get to 140 supply, because the low tier zerg units don't fight well against larger enemy armies. This is the point when zerg really needs a better core army unit to help to transition into hive. The introduction of the ravager and lurker should help this a great deal.
The only other major problem with zerg is that the hive units feel weak. The broodlord is too slow to be effective on the larger maps, but their slow speed is necessary to counter their powerful attack and difficult to fight broodlings. I think it would fit the larger maps better if broodlords moved much faster, but their broodlings didn't last as long - perhaps they only do one additional attack before dying. This would remove one of the more annoying aspects of the broodlord for both the zerg (their immobility) and their opponent (less broodlings to dead with).
One way I think zerg melee units (especially ultralisks) could be made more fun in lategame is to increase their mobility. Introduce an upgrade at hive that allows zerglings and ultralisks to jump down cliffs. This would increase the swarminess of these units. They wouldn't be much more powerful in main an natural assaults (because those cliffs go up), but it would allow zerg melee units more mobility in the middle of the map, which is where most of the action would be happening. Would introduce options for the opponent to bait the zerg down a cliff into a losing battle they can't retreat from.
One last thing is spore crawlers do too much damage to mutalisks. I think the damage buff that was made removed mutalisks as a viable option, which I see as a bad move because infestors already countered mutalisks, and I think zerg vs zerg was more fun when there were more options.
PROTOSS:
Protoss gateway has been problematic. It's either too weak or too strong, based on upgrades and the state of the game. It relies a lot on two extremely powerful upgrades (blink, warpgate) and one extremely powerful spell (forcefield). Especially noticeable against zerg is the situation where a protoss army can either completely dominate, or be decimated based on very few decisions or moments of luck (a gap in the forcefields, blinking well).
I could never understand why warpgates were a direct upgrade from gateways. It seemed like there was an opportunity to have multiple different ways of building units, both with their pros and cons. I think one way to balance things would be to make warpgates warp in units slower than gateways build. This would make warpgate rushes more difficult, but still allow for remote building of units if you're prepared to suffer the cost of less units over time.
With forcefield, I think two things need to happen. I think the sentry should be made a purely caster unit. I think guardian shield should change to give +2 to attack and shield regen in combat as well as it's usual armor buff. Now sentry is a powerful aura unit with forcefield, but it's buff doesn't stack (so having a lot of them with overlapping auras won't have much of an effect) and it doesn't itself do damage. Would mean that you can't rely only on a lot of sentry.
I think protoss needs to have another normal, ranged gateway unit. Something like a dragoon basically. The stalker is a great harassment unit, but is not that great in end game battles (a weakness that is somewhat obscured by the overpowered colossus). The protoss needs a powerful, massable, more expensive gateway unit that can be a backbone in late game battles (but that needs support to prevent it from being overwhelmed).
I also think the stalker needs a change. I think that it's life should be changed from 80 health 80 shields to 40 health 120 shields, and blink should cost 10 shields. That cost will offset the ability's power in a way that makes it still powerful, but makes blink micro keep stalkers alive slightly less long (because they're losing more shields). This would keep stalkers' role as harassment units, but would make them less useful en masse, and keep them from having an overlapping role with dragoons.
I think the colossus should move slower. It's too powerful, but I think part of that is it's too quick. It pretty much keeps up with a gateway army. It should be more of a burden to escort around the battlefield. It is such a powerful tool when it's in the right place, it should be harder to get it there.
I don't want to think about protoss air.
TERRAN:
I think the biggest mistake in the design of terran was the medivac. By coupling a critical component of the terran army (healing) with drop technology, blizzard essentially gave terran drops for free. And by not needing medics, the terran could fill the medivacs with all attacking units, further increasing the power of the drops. Then medivacs got speed boost, which made them even more mobile and harder to kill. So no wonder most of a terran's life is spent dropping - it's the most powerful ability they have by far.
I think the external healing component should be removed from medivacs, and instead medivacs should heal units that are inside it. That would allow them to still be useful in drops, and in getting injured units to safety, but would not be a core part of the terran army. Medics should be put back into the game. They would serve as nice blockers against banelings and zealots, and are better to watch than medivacs (which get in the way of the battle).
Thanks for you time
Lemme start by saying I love ff .. I think sentrys should have stronger attack and ff should be shorter, or make ff break if you stack on top of each other, so if you spam them, only the top ff remains the bottom breaks
I'm going to play LotV, only if the following is implemented (revised):
- A huge kamikaze airship that explodes on command - Groups of Marines can assign leaders and walk in formation - A unit that can only shoot when it is sitting on a mineral patch - Templars can warp into another dimension - If you have 5 Battlecruisers, you can combine them to form a death star - Magic Wand: For 20 sec, players will control all the opponent forces - When 4 probes are grouped together, they can serve as a mobile mineral deposit - Space elephants - Raven Upgrade: Time dilation (speed is faster for opponent) - A berserker unit that automatically dies after 30 sec - Zerg Upgrade: Extra slime - More usage of natural nebula where units can hide behind (Also for flying units) - Natural catastrophes that randomly occur during the game - The Karate-Upgrade for Marauders - An atomic bomb that digs through the ground - Kangaroo Mode for Immortals (jump shoes) - Marines can do the "Raeuberleiter" to pass cliffs - Hydralisks cost no money as long as the "Dyke" (remote-controlled Thor) is alive
On February 23 2015 21:47 SUPERFRANZ wrote: I'm going to play LotV, only if the following is implemented (revised):
- A huge kamikaze airship that explodes on command - Groups of Marines can assign leaders and walk in formation - A unit that can only shoot when it is sitting on a mineral patch - Templars can warp into another dimension - If you have 5 Battlecruisers, you can combine them to form a death star - Magic Wand: For 20 sec, players will control all the opponent forces - When 4 probes are grouped together, they can serve as a mobile mineral deposit - Space elephants - Raven Upgrade: Time dilation (speed is faster for opponent) - A berserker unit that automatically dies after 30 sec - Zerg Upgrade: Extra slime - More usage of natural nebula where units can hide behind (Also for flying units) - Natural catastrophes that randomly occur during the game - The Karate-Upgrade for Marauders - An atomic bomb that digs through the ground - Kangaroo Mode for Immortals (jump shoes) - Marines can do the "Raeuberleiter" to pass cliffs - Hydralisks cost no money as long as the "Dyke" (remote-controlled Thor) is alive
The good old times when TL was a serious forum and not full of trolls. The seriousness died with sc2
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
Use them for what, if harassment isn't an option? Answer: Make a deathball with them.
I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers.
I completely disagree. If you make bases quicker and cheaper to saturate, then you cut the window of opportunity for a two-base player to challenge a 'greedy' third. You would see less aggression before three/four bases, not more.
Also, SC2 doesn't need more army units earlier. That's a recipe for even more deathball-ish play. What it needs is (hopefully) what the LotV resource changes bring: for three-base builds to be less optimal. Currently, it's easy to take a third while the main is still gathering at maximum capacity, and will continue to do so for quite some time (hence the success of the three base 'parade push'). With the new changes, income will start to dwindle much sooner. That will slow the push from 100-200 supply unless more bases are taken, extending the midgame, rewarding expansion and giving players more targets for attack and harrassment.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
Forcefields are hardly used mid-late to late game unless you've kept your sentries alive, nearly a non-issue.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
Forcefields are hardly used mid-late to late game unless you've kept your sentries alive, nearly a non-issue.
Forcefields kinda promote deathballing, not sure. What it do tho is neglect any counterplay when protoss have many sentires.
If we look at early zealot+senties, this combo beats every other combo at this stage. The fights are dull mostly, enemy has to run from it none-stop. Bad interaction.
I want fun micro vs fun micro. Mouse accuracy, predict the enemy movement and so on.
On February 26 2015 18:50 Foxxan wrote: I want fun micro vs fun micro. Mouse accuracy, predict the enemy movement and so on.
Exactly what FF micro is.
I want fun micro vs fun micro
Protoss has it, the enemy dont. This is not micro vs micro, its a one-side fest. Its also about spells, which is not fun micro in general, especially in sc2. It should be about your own units movement, positioning, prediction of the enemy units, mouse accuracy and i probably forgot some things.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
I am in no way a speaker of my "race" of course but I really enjoy playing zerg, I enjoy the heavy mechanical parts of the race and I love the swarm feeling of playing. I love the amazing mobility and counter attacks as well as the multitasking. However I would love it even more if I didnt feel like one race nullified everything that is making Zerg, Zerg.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss?
Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
It's because Protoss got the majority of fun micro shit. I can count the Zerg micro on one hand and while Terran micro is exciting, it's very limited too.
But Protoss? They have all kinds of fun stuff to do. Thing is: it's not fun if you're on the receiving end.
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 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. 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.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
Yes, I agree, I myself am not all too happy about more workers at the beginning. I always use the slow start to get myself set, get my location hotkeys ready, prepare myself for some early pressure silliness, plan my base layout etc, don´t really feel like there is any time left at all. But could be different for ppl who play let´s say 10+ games a day, I play one or two when I have the time.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss?
Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game.
Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss?
Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game.
Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
I like that idea as well, and it seems like Blizzard is trying that as well. However: Will Ravager and Lurker be enough?
On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote: I do like forcefields in some situations. I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals. To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones
forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts.
Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless.
Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools).
They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights.
and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D
This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss?
Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game.
Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
It has nothing to do with difference but with counter play, its just very simple a really "fun" mechanic is only really "fun" if it is fun on both sides, if the difference in play and counter play are too big this creates very bad game play.
Forcefield, photon overcharge, oracles are examples of units that have very bad counter play from game play perspective, the same as SH or ravens.
Protoss doesn't have to change or be the same as T or Z, its just that playing against protoss its too restricted due to the way protoss works, also having things just "different" doesn't mean that they are fun, the SH was different (very different) and we all know how that work out.
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
Use them for what, if harassment isn't an option? Answer: Make a deathball with them.
I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers.
I completely disagree. If you make bases quicker and cheaper to saturate, then you cut the window of opportunity for a two-base player to challenge a 'greedy' third. You would see less aggression before three/four bases, not more.
Also, SC2 doesn't need more army units earlier. That's a recipe for even more deathball-ish play. What it needs is (hopefully) what the LotV resource changes bring: for three-base builds to be less optimal. Currently, it's easy to take a third while the main is still gathering at maximum capacity, and will continue to do so for quite some time (hence the success of the three base 'parade push'). With the new changes, income will start to dwindle much sooner. That will slow the push from 100-200 supply unless more bases are taken, extending the midgame, rewarding expansion and giving players more targets for attack and harrassment.
The thing about harass in sc2 is that it's relatively cheap, low supply and high impact. The defending player needs to spend a large amount of time and army to defend, meaning they are less likely to use their army offensively. If specialized harassment options required a larger investment, it would put the harasser at a disadvantage in a straight up fight, and there would be a trade off between harassment and army strength.
At the moment, terran gets drops for free, and protoss get warp harass for the cost of a warp prism. This means that both terran and protoss can harass at basically any time, without needing to spend resources on specialized tech. Because of this, there is little incentive for protoss or terran to attack with their entire army until they have a decisive advantage. It makes more sense to play defensively and build up a death ball, only sending the powerful harassment units into enemy territory.
As for the economy, by needing less workers per base you can more quickly build army units, and have more army units at max. This would enable players to split the army up and attack with army units (that are no longer needed to sit in base defending against overly powerful harass units). It would be more likely that multiple battles would occur at different locations.
A lower worker count per base also makes it easier to take more bases, giving more opportunities for well positioned armies to take control of the various contested areas of the map.
^which is precisely why zerg's Muta/Ling/Bling is always going to be a thing, because thats the only composition that gets harrassment essentially "within the deal", and solid drop defense on top of it.
Problem is:
You don't really need to harrass a protoss or terran on two bases. Terran can defend easily and replenish SCV losses even easier, Protoss is sitting on his base until the move-out anyway and after that you don't really want to have mutas ...
I don't think that promoting two base play is going to do anything; yeah if they fail they'll be forced to expand but chances are you won't have a third as well, so it really doesn't make a difference.
But thats heavy theorycrafting, no idea how it will play out.
Promoting twobase play with how the maps look is complete and utter bullshit. If we had balanced around 2-3 entrances to a main base and open field naturals we could be talking. But otherwise this is complete crap. People are not going to attack into 300mineral walls until they have 150supply and more deathballs. Meanwhile the existing 2base attacks would all go extinct if the opponent never had to invest into thirds and the 20extra workers to saturate it properly and could build army instead.
I was just thinking about how to make the Reaper more useful past early game. What I came up with:
As an upgrade:
Techlab upgrade at factory level. Gives the Reaper his WOL weapon set back (+5 light*2), (+30 vs Structures grenade). This makes the Reaper a very threatening mid to lategame harrassment unit, capable of dealing with Zerglings, banelings and drones really well and aren't denied by structures alone. Their cost and build time should still discourage mass-reaper production, but with Terran gas banking in lategame, these might be interesting additions.
Ghost Academy tech Cloak upgrade. Allows Reapers to cloak for a short amount of time. They have a 2 second activation animation (can still move during this time) to give the opponent time to snipe them and make sure it does not replace medivac micro. it's a short Cloak for a couple of seconds to allow repositioning, retreating, sniping a few more units. Healing does not work during the cloak. Cooldown is long enough to make it not spammable. ( somewhat comparable to Medivac Boosters in a way)
Jetpack Detonation when Reaper dies, similar to the Baneling, Reapers deal a small AOE when dieing. Probably too much overlap with the Baneling and Widow Mine, but it might be fun, somehow?
Allow Reapers to benefit more from upgrades. Give +2/shot/upgrade or combine the damage into one tick so armor applies only once. This way, Reapers become high-DPS glass cannons mid-lategame with superior mobility compared to the marine.
Spider Mines. Allowing Reapers to upgrade Spider Mine after Factory tech would massively help Mech get off the ground. Coupled with maybe another stat buff Reapers could be the unit that allows Mech to properly transition without having to turtle for too long.
I think some of those suggestions for reapers overlap too much with what already exists. Such as spider mines and widow mines.
Giving the reaper upgrades for mid-lategame we have to ask for what reason would you use a group of reapers instead of dropping marine/marauders in a medivac?
On March 02 2015 21:29 Startyr wrote: I think some of those suggestions for reapers overlap too much with what already exists. Such as spider mines and widow mines.
Giving the reaper upgrades for mid-lategame we have to ask for what reason would you use a group of reapers instead of dropping marine/marauders in a medivac?
Spider Mines and Widow Mines wouldn't overlap that much. Most important thing is not having 2 supply/mine wasted.
Reapers are faster and more mobile and deal their damage earlier (dropping 8 marines takes a lot of time).
The cloak thing might be gimmicky but also funny.
The old weapon set gives them back the role they had in the ending of WOL (QXC experimented with Reaper raids vs Toss, as Protoss warp ins suck vs Reapers and the damage vs structured was very good.
The thing about harass in sc2 is that it's relatively cheap, low supply and high impact. The defending player needs to spend a large amount of time and army to defend, meaning they are less likely to use their army offensively.
Like I asked before: for what?
If I can't keep your army at home with harassment, then I'm never going to harass you, because you'll just march across the map and kill me. And I know you're not going to harass me, for the same reason. So all either of us has to worry about are timing attacks. But as I mentioned before, you've made it so much faster to recoup the investment of a new base that timing attacks have a smaller window to succeed. So you've removed harassment and nerfed timing attacks. What's left? NR15?
As for the economy, by needing less workers per base you can more quickly build army units, and have more army units at max. This would enable players to split the army up
Why would us both having more units at max allow us to split them up, especially when you've just made it harder to do anything useful with small groups of units?
Deathball play is caused by high mobility relative to health and/or damage. In BW, units died far more quickly relative to how rapidly they could be brought to bear in numbers, meaning that a well-set-up defence could significantly slow down a large army. This made splitting the army worthwhile on both sides - me because I can defend with less, you because otherwise you're bottlenecked.
Look at roach vs roach in SC2 - extreme mobility, low DPS and high health. Consequently it's a pure numbers game, and very dull to watch. Compare that with ling/bling/muta vs MMMM: lings and mutas die super-fast to marines, which die super-fast to banelings. Constant action and micro on both sides, with the threat of drops, run-bys and muta flocks to create multiple simultaneous engagements and prevent every game being a parade push.
Look at the colossus: almost as mobile as an air unit, supported by blink stalkers and chargelots. Extreme mobility, large amounts of health. The only thing that prevents it being the perfect deathball is the slow movement speed of templar, which means it is possible to catch them out of position. Think about how often the fate of the templar is decisive in PvX.
In short, you get deathballs because of how the units move and fight. All this change would do is ensure deathball play was the only viable strategy, and allow people to get there more quickly.
On March 02 2015 18:48 SC2Toastie wrote: I was just thinking about how to make the Reaper more useful past early game. What I came up with:
As an upgrade:
Techlab upgrade at factory level. Gives the Reaper his WOL weapon set back (+5 light*2), (+30 vs Structures grenade). This makes the Reaper a very threatening mid to lategame harrassment unit, capable of dealing with Zerglings, banelings and drones really well and aren't denied by structures alone. Their cost and build time should still discourage mass-reaper production, but with Terran gas banking in lategame, these might be interesting additions.
Ghost Academy tech Cloak upgrade. Allows Reapers to cloak for a short amount of time. They have a 2 second activation animation (can still move during this time) to give the opponent time to snipe them and make sure it does not replace medivac micro. it's a short Cloak for a couple of seconds to allow repositioning, retreating, sniping a few more units. Healing does not work during the cloak. Cooldown is long enough to make it not spammable. ( somewhat comparable to Medivac Boosters in a way)
Jetpack Detonation when Reaper dies, similar to the Baneling, Reapers deal a small AOE when dieing. Probably too much overlap with the Baneling and Widow Mine, but it might be fun, somehow?
Allow Reapers to benefit more from upgrades. Give +2/shot/upgrade or combine the damage into one tick so armor applies only once. This way, Reapers become high-DPS glass cannons mid-lategame with superior mobility compared to the marine.
Spider Mines. Allowing Reapers to upgrade Spider Mine after Factory tech would massively help Mech get off the ground. Coupled with maybe another stat buff Reapers could be the unit that allows Mech to properly transition without having to turtle for too long.
Some comments?
Reapers are already insanely good as an opening and now you want to buff then so you dont need to transition out of them anymore? Makes no sense, also terran has plenty of harass options as is. If anything i would like a reaper nerf in the early game so that we can see a larger variety of openings from Zerg (and Terran).
On March 02 2015 18:48 SC2Toastie wrote: I was just thinking about how to make the Reaper more useful past early game. What I came up with:
As an upgrade:
Techlab upgrade at factory level. Gives the Reaper his WOL weapon set back (+5 light*2), (+30 vs Structures grenade). This makes the Reaper a very threatening mid to lategame harrassment unit, capable of dealing with Zerglings, banelings and drones really well and aren't denied by structures alone. Their cost and build time should still discourage mass-reaper production, but with Terran gas banking in lategame, these might be interesting additions.
Ghost Academy tech Cloak upgrade. Allows Reapers to cloak for a short amount of time. They have a 2 second activation animation (can still move during this time) to give the opponent time to snipe them and make sure it does not replace medivac micro. it's a short Cloak for a couple of seconds to allow repositioning, retreating, sniping a few more units. Healing does not work during the cloak. Cooldown is long enough to make it not spammable. ( somewhat comparable to Medivac Boosters in a way)
Jetpack Detonation when Reaper dies, similar to the Baneling, Reapers deal a small AOE when dieing. Probably too much overlap with the Baneling and Widow Mine, but it might be fun, somehow?
Allow Reapers to benefit more from upgrades. Give +2/shot/upgrade or combine the damage into one tick so armor applies only once. This way, Reapers become high-DPS glass cannons mid-lategame with superior mobility compared to the marine.
Spider Mines. Allowing Reapers to upgrade Spider Mine after Factory tech would massively help Mech get off the ground. Coupled with maybe another stat buff Reapers could be the unit that allows Mech to properly transition without having to turtle for too long.
Some comments?
Reapers are already insanely good as an opening and now you want to buff then so you dont need to transition out of them anymore? Makes no sense, also terran has plenty of harass options as is. If anything i would like a reaper nerf in the early game so that we can see a larger variety of openings from Zerg (and Terran).
What..?
The 'Insanely good' phase ended with WOL Beta. A post factory upgrade really forces you out of reapers as any proper attack can kill you if you don't. None of the proposed buffs make them any better vs roaches or queens.
Really, not making a unit viable through a midgame upgrade because you don't like them in early game is the poorest reasoning I can think of.
I don't see the need to make reaper viable in mid to mid late game neither. It's a a specialist unit, just like how some units are meant to work better in mid or late game for example.
I understand what he's getting at because the unit's only purpose is to scout early in the game. Then it completely lacks a purpose. Though I'd say stopping at giving them their +light damage kit would suffice.
On March 02 2015 23:24 ETisME wrote: I don't see the need to make reaper viable in mid to mid late game neither. It's a a specialist unit, just like how some units are meant to work better in mid or late game for example.
It would be nice to have many units work through long periods of the game. Not sure how to do that with the reaper though. I'm against all the gimmicky ideas like regular cloaks (burrow type of cloak is much cooler; mines, banelings, roaches... not as many freewins due to lack of detection).
The game design currently is that later in the game you build a combat army that can harass too (or a harass army that can combat too). At the end of the day I think that even a reaper would just harass through medivacs and just be a stronger marauder or marine in that context. You are just not going to walk/jump if you can fly+heal+pick up while being surrounded for mere 100/100 more. The fact that the reaper is much more expensive than the regular bio rather enforces that you really want to protect the unit even more with medivacs, than send it alone.
On February 13 2015 05:45 Big J wrote: Please don't make combats slower. The worst combats in the game are those that involve lots of low-dps/high HP units, such as Protoss, Roaches or Broodlord type of battles. Swarm Hosts are hated exactly because they slow the pace of the battles down so much, making for minute long struggles to kill a unit or two.
The problem isn't dps/health relations, those are pretty good in general. The problem is too much mobility, which is often described by "fast paced play". The fact that you only have like 10vision range from a lot of angles around your base and then suddenly a gigantic army in the form of medivacs or mutalisks or a single warp prism can appear in your base is the problem. Harass play is fun, but it also should be limited to that. Mass doomdrops in all Terran matchups severely cripple the abilities to actually move out against a bio-centric Terran. Mutalisks and Zerglings force Protoss into stale defensive positions and severely cripple mapdesign to cater to Protoss ability to do that. Instead of nerfing the damage output of all those units, it would be nice to give players more reaction time against specific very aggressively used units, allowing for smaller repercussions when making rather small positioning mistakes.
Otherwise the changes seem to go into the right direction. Not sure about the new Protoss unit, but that is very hard to tell until one sees it in action.
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.
To be honest I'd like to see a 5% decrease in game speed and an additional 5% decrease in attack speeds and a very slight tweak of the pathfinding to make units more clumsy/weighty. It'll be a fair amount of work to implement and it won't fix anything, making it an ill-advised endeavor for Blizzard to undertake, but I suspect they would make for better base values to design the game around.
But the problem, also when watching is the huge frustration when a player gets ahead through many good micro/macro decitsions but then he takes 1 bad fight which lasts 2 seconds -> storm storm bio dead. Also some unit designs that make it so hard to engage the opponent: A protoss that has HTs + Colossi in a huge ball coming for you makes it (sometimes) so much easier for the toss to fight then for the terran. Well that counts for non Korean-Pros. The game may be balanced but the feeling that the fights take 2 seconds and are over and after 20 minutes of watching there is just this one fight and then one army wins and moves over the other player is just annoying - to watch and to play (since the problem, one having more to micro then the other isn't big for a 400 apm korean pro, but makes it more and more frustrating the further down you are in the ladder (since it is imbalanced on lower leagues). And ofc the game must be balanced around pro gamers (and it IS balanced there), 99.99% are no pro gamers, and for these 99.99% its sometimes pure frustration.
I think increasing combat duration would lead to a better experience for the 99.99% whilst playing and therefore also whilst watching -> simply because seeing the same 2-second fights I am in myself so often (and lose) are frustrating to me, and if I see them onscreen it is frustrating as well, which led to the case that i don't tune in to certain matchups anymore. Getting Protossed does hurt no matter if you watch it or play it yourself. But I am not only refering to Toss here, I also hate some Units of Zerg and Terran (I play all 3 races btw, but I guess as you can see, T is my favorite to play). For Instance, I don't like the randomness of the WM (does it get its critical connections or does it not...?). Reducing these extreme high damage "win or lose" (if they hit or if they don't hit) units/abilities would be great and make the fights more about micro and multitasking again. But these are just wet dreams of a SC2 player that lost his hope for the game feeling more rewarding and less frustrating at some times (the problem is, that I don't hate losing if I think the opponent fought well the whole game, but if the opponent wins because of ONE simple trick instead of doing lots of things better, its pure frustration and hate on the game and other player instead of me thinking "well he outplayed me on several levels, guess I need to improve to win vs a player of his calber")
On March 02 2015 23:24 ETisME wrote: I don't see the need to make reaper viable in mid to mid late game neither. It's a a specialist unit, just like how some units are meant to work better in mid or late game for example.
Mid and late game units are not obsolesced by the very fact that they're, well, mid/late game units. Reapers become worthless the instance the scouting aspect is complete; the pitiful damage output is nice and you might actually be able to end the game with committed reapers, but against anything that could be considered an army or static defense, they die, simple as that.
I don't think it's good game design at all to have a unit become obsolete after the first five or so minutes. Every other early game unit has lasting power; marines and marauders are mainstay, while hellions are good for anything; zerglings and roaches are still good runby fodder in a late game composition, while banelings can be backbreakers; zealots, stalkers and even sentries last well into the midgame, and in the late game still act as buffers for tech units.
Well personally i think a Mine unit would be good for the terran race since it synergy with tanks so well and also synergise with dropplay.
Reapers with a type of Spidermine could probably be quite cool actually. So reapers+tanks is a thing.
Some other things worth mentioning: The transform abilities of terran should be redesigned completely so its used in direct combat ,as a micro. On, off and then it will be countermicro for the opponent. Perfect method to make mech more intersting, better and more agressive oriented.
I like that you brought up the reaper as it is one of those units, that i feel deserve some love and changes. I am not talking about maybe broken mechanics, but units that are used only in very specific situations and MUs. These are bad game design wise imo.
On March 02 2015 18:48 SC2Toastie wrote: I was just thinking about how to make the Reaper more useful past early game. What I came up with:
As an upgrade:
Techlab upgrade at factory level. Gives the Reaper his WOL weapon set back (+5 light*2), (+30 vs Structures grenade). This makes the Reaper a very threatening mid to lategame harrassment unit, capable of dealing with Zerglings, banelings and drones really well and aren't denied by structures alone. Their cost and build time should still discourage mass-reaper production, but with Terran gas banking in lategame, these might be interesting additions.
Ghost Academy tech Cloak upgrade. Allows Reapers to cloak for a short amount of time. They have a 2 second activation animation (can still move during this time) to give the opponent time to snipe them and make sure it does not replace medivac micro. it's a short Cloak for a couple of seconds to allow repositioning, retreating, sniping a few more units. Healing does not work during the cloak. Cooldown is long enough to make it not spammable. ( somewhat comparable to Medivac Boosters in a way)
Jetpack Detonation when Reaper dies, similar to the Baneling, Reapers deal a small AOE when dieing. Probably too much overlap with the Baneling and Widow Mine, but it might be fun, somehow?
Allow Reapers to benefit more from upgrades. Give +2/shot/upgrade or combine the damage into one tick so armor applies only once. This way, Reapers become high-DPS glass cannons mid-lategame with superior mobility compared to the marine.
Spider Mines. Allowing Reapers to upgrade Spider Mine after Factory tech would massively help Mech get off the ground. Coupled with maybe another stat buff Reapers could be the unit that allows Mech to properly transition without having to turtle for too long.
Some comments?
I like the spidermines!
To keep them a harass unit is difficult, because as others mentioned it could overlap with drop harass and in most cases this is the better choice (why spend rax time and supply on a reaper instead of bio which you can use for all kinds of things?). So a different way of late game harassment could be with low supply, but high cost. From the terra point of view this is the nuke.
Yes it sounds weired, but i think it might work to give reapers the nuke. They are faster and more mobile than ghosts, which are a pain in the ass to move over the map. So what i have in mind: - Reapers could throw a "signal transmitter" on the ground which is the target of the nuke. - It has maybe 150 hp, is visible and can of course be destroyed to stop. - You still need to produce nukes in the Academy, but maybe it could store more than one
So you have to worry about (maybe cloaked) reapers roaming between your bases and could devestate an undefended one easily. Of course it needs balancing, but i think it would fit in and compliments the role of the unit. What do you think?
This also leaves a ability spot open for the ghost. The ghost needs something for TvZ and TvT and since both the races shine with their mobility and speed i would like a way to slow them down. So maybe a short duration stun or heavy slow to give you time against blings or some enemy stimmed marines?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/shiroiusagi/gfxapplicants/v1/tl.jpg)
.
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ga7aBGY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/39/Immortal.png/294px-Immortal.png)
