|
On November 30 2015 19:44 deacon.frost wrote:
People have different styles and tastes. Right now the game is bad for me to play and I hate the map pool with an endless rage. I also feel like an idiot when I have to build pylons for defense... that's the most stupid thing in SC2 I have encountered and I played against mass warhounds. Also slower start would be cool(maybe 10 workers?)
Well yes,it's just i found it sad some people might leave cause i don't think we will get as many player in return..
And i have to agree the map pool make things a little random(since some maps are really race favored,and this depend of the match up so you can't vet..),im not a fan either..
And although i like the new overcharge (mb bit strong,but i don't feel it's that much), i think you should be able to spell it on the nexus too.. it should not be that strong since a part of the range will overlap with the nexus, and most of time it's not the best area to cover.. But yeah losing because you forgot to put a pylon at the back of your mineral line is pretty raging..
|
On November 30 2015 20:12 Kenny_mk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 19:44 deacon.frost wrote:
People have different styles and tastes. Right now the game is bad for me to play and I hate the map pool with an endless rage. I also feel like an idiot when I have to build pylons for defense... that's the most stupid thing in SC2 I have encountered and I played against mass warhounds. Also slower start would be cool(maybe 10 workers?) Well yes,it's just i found it sad some people might leave cause i don't think we will get as many player in return.. And i have to agree the map pool make things a little random(since some maps are really race favored,and this depend of the match up so you can't vet..),im not a fan either.. And although i like the new overcharge (mb bit strong,but i don't feel it's that much), i think you should be able to spell it on the nexus too.. it should not be that strong since a part of the range will overlap with the nexus, and most of time it's not the best area to cover.. But yeah losing because you forgot to put a pylon at the back of your mineral line is pretty raging..
i totally disagree with your oppionon that you should be able to spell overcharge on nexus... with the high dmg output it got its absolutly dumb to put it on nexi, coz u cant kill a nexus as fast as u can kill pylons... that would totally break the game. also if u feel bad about losing a game coz u forgot to put a pylon near ur mineral line, tbh thats like the easiest thing to fix, by just building the damn pylon... protoss player first world problems...
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:12 Kenny_mk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 19:44 deacon.frost wrote:
People have different styles and tastes. Right now the game is bad for me to play and I hate the map pool with an endless rage. I also feel like an idiot when I have to build pylons for defense... that's the most stupid thing in SC2 I have encountered and I played against mass warhounds. Also slower start would be cool(maybe 10 workers?) Well yes,it's just i found it sad some people might leave cause i don't think we will get as many player in return.. And i have to agree the map pool make things a little random(since some maps are really race favored,and this depend of the match up so you can't vet..),im not a fan either.. And although i like the new overcharge (mb bit strong,but i don't feel it's that much), i think you should be able to spell it on the nexus too.. it should not be that strong since a part of the range will overlap with the nexus, and most of time it's not the best area to cover.. But yeah losing because you forgot to put a pylon at the back of your mineral line is pretty raging..
Using pylons for defense is just wrong. I don't like it, that doesn't make any sense. That's why Protoss has photon cannons. It's raping the lore and the game. I didn't like nexus overcharge but at least I didn't feel that it was forced. I was - OK, so nexus now has some cannons, why not, it's a big building and they learned a lesson from Terrans(PF). But pylon? PYLON? Really? That's like Indiana Jones in pyjamas the whole movie. Doing his taxes. In January. With a smile.
|
Norway839 Posts
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !!
|
4713 Posts
My top to fix list.
1st Map pool, give us boring, stable 7 standard maps so we can get a decent idea of the balance of each race.
2nd Rework a few units from all races to give them all stronger ground to air anti-air and make GtA the strongest form of AA.
3rd Add a medium armor tag and rework a few units as appropriate.
4th Revisit Ultralisks and their counters, especially in ZvT. Feels wrong to have only one decent counter, ideally all units for all races should have at least 2 and at most 3 counters (not hard counters). Its even more absurd that the late game air units like BCs and Carriers can hardly tickle Ultras and the only reason BCs could be decent is Yamato.
5th Adepts are way too efficient at killing workers and too difficult to stop.
6th Disrupters are very stupid in PvP and need a change. It produces boring games in the sense that the damage potential is so large that no one dares to commit to an actual engagement. Kind of like mech vs SH, the chance of failure was high enough that it discouraged mech from moving out instead of encouraging it to push forward, except this produces faster games. Overall result will be about the same in a few months from now, everyone will hate watching it.
7th Ravagers shouldn't be just hatch tech.
8th Nydus is still stupid and needs to lose the invincibility tag.
9th Liberators might need some tweaks, not sure witch, perhaps making them require a tech lab to start.
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !!
Also feedback dance  (with Templars in Prism because of the movement speed)
|
On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !!
agree, and btw good job commentaring snute! topic: stalker disruptor definitly needs a change... but i dont think energy costs on disruptors would change that much. high templars are way to slow to counter disruptors (with feedbacks then)
|
On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !!
But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead).
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !! But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead).
Ghost - templar dance is similar. You cannot EMP templars in Warp prisms the same way you cannot feedback balls of doom in Warp Prism
|
On November 30 2015 20:50 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote:On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !! But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead). Ghost - templar dance is similar. You cannot EMP templars in Warp prisms the same way you cannot feedback balls of doom in Warp Prism
Yeah but you need like 5+ disruptors in lategame PvP no? 3 warp prisms for your balls and 1 for your own templar?
|
On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !! But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead).
Ghosts...
also it depends a lot on the numbers whether this introduces a good dynamic to begin with. Theo suggested something similar with charges in the beta and I did the math and it was kind of meh, Disruptors would still be able to combat constantly for 4-5mins before running out of regenerating charges.
Also I'm not sure we want them to have double shots...
|
On November 30 2015 20:58 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote:On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !! But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead). Ghosts... also it depends a lot on the numbers whether this introduces a good dynamic to begin with. Theo suggested something similar with charges in the beta and I did the math and it was kind of meh, Disruptors would still be able to combat constantly for 4-5mins before running out of regenerating charges. Also I'm not sure we want them to have double shots...
Specifically in PvP I don't see a lot of ghosts.
Honestly even if they had energy, I'm not sure if it's better to intentionally EMP disruptors or just EMP everything you can hit and dodge/focus down disruptors. People who prefer playing without ghosts probably still wouldn't make them if disruptors had energy.
|
On November 30 2015 21:06 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:58 Big J wrote:On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote:On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !! But then you add another component to the dance, namely Feedback, no? I think this makes it even more difficult to control, because one moment of inattentiveness, one missed flank, and all your disruptors are suddenly useless (if not dead). Ghosts... also it depends a lot on the numbers whether this introduces a good dynamic to begin with. Theo suggested something similar with charges in the beta and I did the math and it was kind of meh, Disruptors would still be able to combat constantly for 4-5mins before running out of regenerating charges. Also I'm not sure we want them to have double shots... Specifically in PvP I don't see a lot of ghosts. Honestly even if they had energy, I'm not sure if it's better to intentionally EMP disruptors or just EMP everything you can hit and dodge/focus down disruptors. People who prefer playing without ghosts probably still wouldn't make them if disruptors had energy.
yeah, but if you hit everything you are also going to hit disruptors with it for shield damange and energy. Having Protoss splash rely on mainly energy units doesn't sound like a very robust design too me with the ghost/bio dynamic in the game.
|
Norway839 Posts
At any rate it's pretty obvious that attacking into stalker/disruptor using stalker/disruptor so far has proved to be too stale imo. The balls are too frequent and risk-free to send off, and not enough ways to find ground.
Compare it to the Zerg infestor - if you run in with it and fungal something to lock it in place, most of the time the infestor will either die or be paperweight for ~40 seconds. Disruptor stand-off is basically infinite and blink cooldown is always there. PS. the infestor is also capable of double shots, that doesn't exactly make it super OP because after that, it's just not very useful.
The current PvP meta we saw was basically a display of what happens when you design RTS and put both teleport and delayed aoe damage on ridicilously short cooldowns instead making them energy abilities with limited use over time.
As much as people like to be able to skillfully preserve units forever, the design should promote units to eventually die in battles. Using energy is a fantastic tool to shape that tension over time ~
And if changing the disruptor makes it too weak in PvT vs bio, perhaps the gateway units or colo/immortal should get a buff instead of revolving the design around pinning everything on the disruptor. It seemingly can be quite all-or-nothing already ...
|
Snute do you have a direct line to the Blizzard SC2 team because I think all of these suggestions are fantastic and I hope DK and the rest take it into consideration.
|
I'm not sure if it's because of the marauder nerf or the general strength of the adept but gateway units already feel a lot stronger in TvP than ever before IMO. And any gateway buff is always going to be used for all-ins first. So I'd like them to buff something else if they had to in that case.
|
On November 30 2015 21:13 Liquid`Snute wrote:
At any rate it's pretty obvious that attacking into stalker/disruptor using stalker/disruptor so far has proved to be too stale imo. The balls are too frequent and risk-free to send off, and not enough ways to find ground.
Compare it to the Zerg infestor - if you run in with it and fungal something to lock it in place, most of the time the infestor will either die or be paperweight for ~40 seconds. Disruptor stand-off is basically infinite and blink cooldown is always there. PS. the infestor is also capable of double shots, that doesn't exactly make it super OP because after that, it's just not very useful.
The current PvP meta we saw was basically a display of what happens when you design RTS and put both teleport and delayed aoe damage on ridicilously short cooldowns instead making them energy abilities with limited use over time.
As much as people like to be able to skillfully preserve units forever, the design should promote units to eventually die in battles. Using energy is a fantastic tool to shape that tension over time ~
And if changing the disruptor makes it too weak in PvT vs bio, perhaps the gateway units or colo/immortal should get a buff instead of revolving the design around pinning everything on the disruptor. It seemingly can be quite all-or-nothing already ...
I agree, but you are cutting into fundamental problems of disruptor design with frequent, massive damage to balance out a dodgeable shot and fundamental Protoss design decisions with high HP/low damage units with shields, blink, forcefield, recall, 6range prism pickups and whatnot.
People have voiced that opinion about disruptors being way too hit or miss since its introduction, the unit would need a fundamental different basic dynamic. You can play around with energy and fast energy regeneration, charges, cooldowns and whatnot, but at the end of the day it is probably going to stay a unit that either is played and dodged for an eternity (because blink is going to stay), or not played at all like the swarm host after its design-change that was done with a similar argumentation.
|
On November 30 2015 21:13 Liquid`Snute wrote:
At any rate it's pretty obvious that attacking into stalker/disruptor using stalker/disruptor so far has proved to be too stale imo. The balls are too frequent and risk-free to send off, and not enough ways to find ground.
Compare it to the Zerg infestor - if you run in with it and fungal something to lock it in place, most of the time the infestor will either die or be paperweight for ~40 seconds. Disruptor stand-off is basically infinite and blink cooldown is always there. PS. the infestor is also capable of double shots, that doesn't exactly make it super OP because after that, it's just not very useful.
The current PvP meta we saw was basically a display of what happens when you design RTS and put both teleport and delayed aoe damage on ridicilously short cooldowns instead making them energy abilities with limited use over time.
As much as people like to be able to skillfully preserve units forever, the design should promote units to eventually die in battles. Using energy is a fantastic tool to shape that tension over time ~
And if changing the disruptor makes it too weak in PvT vs bio, perhaps the gateway units or colo/immortal should get a buff instead of revolving the design around pinning everything on the disruptor. It seemingly can be quite all-or-nothing already ...
Regarding the stalemate, it is the disruptor fault not Stalkers blink. So if we need to focus on something it has to be on Disruptors. Now why disruptors are making such huge impact? Reason is their shot deals super heavy damage. Should it be nerfed? I think not yet. But what could be changed is how the shot work, it should explode on touch with enemy units. Phasing the shot into enemy units to force the highest damage is what forcing the blink retreat tactic to react and causing the stalemate.
This needs to be changed then we may see counter micro to sacrifice a unit to bare the Disruptor shot and give opportunity for the army to attack.
|
i wonder why nobody did use the oracle traps in combination with disruptors, could be super strong, but i guess theyll need to snipe observers before...
|
4713 Posts
Snute's energy idea for Disrupters is pretty neat and something I hadn't considered. Definitely something Blizzard should take into consideration sometime down the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
