EPTWhat are your thoughts on each matchup and how they have changed from Heart of the Swarm? What do you like about the changes and what type of gameplay has been the most exciting for you as a viewer? Is there a particular game or strategy you enjoyed?
LotV post-DH reactions
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
What are your thoughts on each matchup and how they have changed from Heart of the Swarm? What do you like about the changes and what type of gameplay has been the most exciting for you as a viewer? Is there a particular game or strategy you enjoyed? | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
Otherwise the games are OK. It's still the beginning and things are still being figured out but it's been fun to watch. | ||
|
NasusAndDraven
359 Posts
2. The metagame is not figured out at all yet, if DH showed anything its this, everyone just does what ever. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 29 2015 04:04 NasusAndDraven wrote: 1. DH is not over yet, how could anyone have post-DH reactions? 2. The metagame is not figured out at all yet, if DH showed anything its this, everyone just does what ever. Re-read the op. I'm not asking for your thoughts on balance or the meta, I'm asking what you think about the game, the units and what you like and dislike about how the matchups are changing | ||
|
achan1058
1091 Posts
| ||
|
crbox
Canada1180 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
I would expect a game that is out for this short a time to produce a lot less great games than it did, so that gives me optimism. None of the games were really amazing (ie above great), but the overall quality was very good and a few of them still stood out. I can't wait for GSL. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
| ||
|
wasilix
Russian Federation80 Posts
In any case, it is so much fun to watch! | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
| ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On November 29 2015 04:43 Nebuchad wrote: If DH doesn't release a replay pack for this something is going to get broken at my place btw prepare something easy to break. Wasn't the best prod in the world during the tourney and stesjo wasn't there for sc2. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
On November 29 2015 04:44 sAsImre wrote: prepare something easy to break. Wasn't the best prod in the world during the tourney and stesjo wasn't there for sc2. fuck everything | ||
|
flipstar
226 Posts
 | ||
|
JazVM
Germany1196 Posts
Protoss will become the strongest race with Terran and Zerg beeing relatively equal, maybe slightly favoring Terran. I think this is very natural, as build orders are more important for T and P. The only thing I am really concerned about is the Disruptor. | ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
| ||
|
_fool
Netherlands675 Posts
| ||
|
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
The disruptirs breaking stalkers into pieces witha shot remjnded me so much of reavers on BW! So exciting and literally leaves you holding your breathe hoping your favorite player manages to micro onthose situations. Also its good to see pvz in a good state.  cant wait to see more tournaments and builds! | ||
|
Raindogs
13 Posts
| ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
| ||
|
NexT_SC2
United States117 Posts
EDIT: why can't zergs just play safer builds so they don't die to all of the protoss aggression and then just roll over protoss in late game? Kind of like turtle mech, maybe I don't understand zerg well? | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 29 2015 05:46 Raindogs wrote: Disruptors seem a bit too good, or is at least a bit too important in two of three matchups. On zergs part, engaging disruptors seem impossible at times, while in PvP it makes for pritty shitty games imo (who gets to build Tempests first?). It seems in general that even though the new mineral/gas-situation in isolation moves the game towards being more dynamic, the power of stationary units such as the lurkers and especially the disruptors actually increase the defenders advantage even more. Do you feel that a larger defenders advantage is positive for the game or negative? Why? | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36990 Posts
| ||
|
Raindogs
13 Posts
Do you feel that a larger defenders advantage is positive for the game or negative? Why? You could probably argue for both: being able to defend vs all-ins are of course important to make a dynamic well-functioning game etc. But in the case of the disruptors and the lurkers, but mostly in the case of the disruptor, it seems a bit too hard to "finish" games so to say. Even though micro etc. should be important, it is more or less impossible to engage into a protoss army with 4 disruptors off creep without Mutas, or so it has looked like during this tournament. I guess if you have 200 supply vs 120 it should be arguably pretty hard, close to impossible to hold. But it didnt look too difficult when you can spam disruptors balls which the zerg can not split against. The same goes for protoss: in the Parting vs Showtime series it was easy to see that even huge army advantages could not be properly taken advantage of. | ||
|
Silver777
United States347 Posts
1. The maps used were clearly imbalanced and there should never be "free" gold bases, but everyone already knew this. 2. Coinciding with point 1, Zergs were playing EXTREMELY greedy all tournament long...for seemingly no reason as they seemingly had a much stronger early/mid/late game. Like if a zerg builds a roach warren and shows a few ravagers, protoss/terran must respect it and the attack potential. For the most part zergs played as greedy as possible and tried to get to some specific tech/insane economy as if they were on a timer, when their opponents had the timer. For me a clear example of the safer zerg play was the one non-finals Solar vs Parting(i think) game where solar opened with the ling drop into a few roaches into mutas. Basically harassing parting early then forcing units to be built and disruptor tech with roaches (thus slowing this tech/infrastructure), then finally switching to Mutas to counter the disruptor path and harass. 3. Most protoss/terran pretty much decided to all-in or cheese zerg all tournament long because of points 1 and 2. 4. Pretty much all P match-ups revolve around the disruptor after early game. Most terrans were used to splitting MM from banelings, but zergs had no clue how to split units well or position lurkers well. Once zerg fix that I am curious how useful disruptors will be. Also a lot of zergs were poor at tech switching against disruptors. When the protoss has 5+ disruptors...why are you continuing to make roaches and hydras for 5-10 mins? 5. Ravagers are really good, but spamming 10 corrosive biles all at the same time, let alone onto 1 spot is not. Nor is walking your roaches ONTO your own corrosive biles, which happened quite a lot. Once zergs get better at ravager usage...well if the unit wasn't good enough already. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
About the game, it is I think not as bad as I expected, but it is way too unstable. I like that there are actually not a bad variety of things happening in terms of different builds but the way things play out is most of the time very centered around a bunch of key explosive very-fast/surprise action, and there seems to be too much incentive for going for different types of "all-in" in the early game. Some little things come to take all the focus of the game, gather all/too much of the weight of the game into themselves. There is too much run away/run forward trying to get a crippling shot or dodge, can't seem to rely on any positionning or planning for more than a few seconds, small lucky events are too dominant. It feels a bit too much like a game of speed-poker. Things like Disruptors are really stupid... I would want to see more strategical games. Players show they have a lot of potential for creativity as well as speed and accuracy. I hope they get more room to express that in the future with a game that is more stable and fair. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
Terran seem too strong though. I really hope Blizzard think long and hard before improving the bunker upgrade. Maybe they could tone down Liberators and improve Ravagers somehow? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
TvT - I like the marine+flying tank wars, it makes a bad position slightly more forgiving giving a more dynamic TvT. TvP - Disruptor and Liberator add postional gameplay and make this matchup way better to watch PvZ - Not sure yet, seem some good stuff and some bad stuff TvZ - Quite interesting, difficult to see what the meta will be. PvP - I think it generally improved but I'm really really allergic to disruptor wars, I can't dig it. Economy - I think it's a big succes, in most longer macro games players were struggling for bases, leading to more skirmishes and almost never fully maxed armies with big banks | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
On November 29 2015 05:58 Seeker wrote: I think what's really amazing is that we ended up with another Korean vs Korean finals. I fully expected this DH to feature a foreigner vs Korean finals or a foreigner vs foreigner finals. PartinG and Solar really practiced their asses off. B-but Lilbow practiced so hard for LotV! | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Balance wise everything seems pretty fine to me, would be nice if Blizzard wouldn't interfere because of community whine. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
I feel like it is going to dominate PvP for many years and that is going to get pretty old fast. No one really liked Colossus Wars over and over in WOL, but at least there was a litany of 1 base timings that gave the matchup variety. We don't have those 1 base timings in LOTV to give the matchup variety. Idra once said that the best way you could tell a unit was imbalanced was look at how it used in the mirror. I think that was true with the Colossus and is true with the Disruptor. Also, Protoss relies too heavily on the Disruptor in PvT and PvZ also. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:42 MockHamill wrote: I am really impressed by the Zerg players especially in TvZ. That match up is so hard but somehow they still managed to win against all odds! Terran seem too strong though. I really hope Blizzard think long and hard before improving the bunker upgrade. Maybe they could tone down Liberators and improve Ravagers somehow? Yeah the bunker upgrade buff would break the game. I hope ultras get a little more armor so zerg can somehow compete with terrans ground army. And how would you improve ravagers? The 13 range upgrade blizzard added was quite good, don't know why it got removed. | ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
TvZ - Strange. Muta/ling/bane is almost dead because of liberator and ravager strength (early ravager pushes are pretty popular I guess). Not a bad MU though. Mech seems impotent, not sure how I like that. TvP - The mid and late game is much more pleasant to look at IMO. The early game is probably just as infuriating as Terran to look at, maybe a bit more Overall it's a better MU I think.TvT - Hm. I think bio/tank vs bio/tank improved a bit. There's still positioning involved with tankivacs and doom drops are less good. Mech is pretty much completely dead in the matchup now unfortunately. PvZ - Much better. Not much else to say. The everlasting blink/sentry vs roach/hydra fights were boring me to death. PvP - It's pretty much still PvP. Either it ends in 5 minutes because of hilarious shenanigans, or the players do a dance of death. It's fine. ZvZ - The early game IMO is worse because the early pool speedling/bane all-in seems really strong. Roach/ravager vs roach/ravager is more pleasant than pure roach wars though. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:59 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the bunker upgrade buff would break the game. I hope ultras get a little more armor so zerg can somehow compete with terrans ground army. And how would you improve ravagers? The 13 range upgrade blizzard added was quite good, don't know why it got removed. Yeah removing the range upgrade was an overreaction. Maybe make the skill shot land faster as well? Sometimes Zerg seems to have problems with fast moving units like Banshees so making the skill shot land faster would be a good first step to help the struggling Zergs. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On November 29 2015 07:16 MockHamill wrote: Yeah removing the range upgrade was an overreaction. Maybe make the skill shot land faster as well? Sometimes Zerg seems to have problems with fast moving units like Banshees so making the skill shot land faster would be a good first step to help the struggling Zergs. bigger AOE would also help. Maybe like a psi storm so you can't dodge as easily. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:56 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm also concerned with the Disruptor. I feel like it is going to dominate PvP for many years and that is going to get pretty old fast. No one really liked Colossus Wars over and over in WOL, but at least there was a litany of 1 base timings that gave the matchup variety. We don't have those 1 base timings in LOTV to give the matchup variety. Idra once said that the best way you could tell a unit was imbalanced was look at how it used in the mirror. I think that was true with the Colossus and is true with the Disruptor. Also, Protoss relies too heavily on the Disruptor in PvT and PvZ also. My main concern with the disruptor is that in PvZ and PvP, it entirely dictates the rhythm of fights once you get 6-10. It doesn't require a positional commitment to fire and there's no benefit to keeping it separate from your army. It's hard for zerg to force blink stalker/disruptor into a disadvantageous position; splitting and better lurker positioning doesn't change that fact. In PvP, trading out stalkers for time seems like a legitimate stalling tactic as a good disruptor count prevents the opponent from chasing a numerically inferior army. | ||
|
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On November 29 2015 05:58 Seeker wrote: I think what's really amazing is that we ended up with another Korean vs Korean finals. I fully expected this DH to feature a foreigner vs Korean finals or a foreigner vs foreigner finals. PartinG and Solar really practiced their asses off. It was bound to happen because there was at least one korean per race, so no matter the current balance / meta koreans would meet in the finals . | ||
|
Popkiller
3415 Posts
Ravagers are cool, I like that a roach can morph into something that can attack air, and corrosive bile is effective but also requires skill to use. Lurkers are cool, they've always been cool. Adepts are cool because of their teleport ability, as we saw PartinG use, dancing between bases. Disruptors seem cool just because it's exciting to see if they get a shot off. Protoss can even do pylon rushes, now. For Terran... Liberators are powerful, but they're just flying siege tanks. Cyclones are a super vanilla unit that does single shots vs. ground and air, and if it locks on it can move while shooting. Ok. My only hope is that the Ghost buffs make them get used more often, because Ghosts are one of the coolest units in the game. Seeing Ghost/Liberator vs Zerg was refreshing. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. rofl yeah if you like to play turtling until deathball. Glad you think that's what a proper RTS should be. | ||
|
Rulker
United States1477 Posts
On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. I didnt know people loved deathballs | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:59 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the bunker upgrade buff would break the game. I hope ultras get a little more armor so zerg can somehow compete with terrans ground army. And how would you improve ravagers? The 13 range upgrade blizzard added was quite good, don't know why it got removed. + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. Wow seriously? you have such extreme reactions given there is a paperthin meta right now and the game has been played professionally in 2 tournaments. Your idea of more armor for ultras is atrocious, terrans already struggle vs +8 armor ultras, let alone adding more armor. A psi-storm-sized corrosive bile that lands faster? you must be joking, because blinding cloud+fungal+storm bile would be extremely broken, let alone broken in the early game. Ravagers vT are already in a weird place in the early game, with 3-4 biles being able to safely break bunkers. What is your idea of balance? why are you so toxic about the future of this game? if you want a game revolved completely around a stale meta and your idea that bio/mine vs LBM was the GOAT RTS interaction? Are you trolling? Because you are not swag_bro. EDIT: Personally, I think we need to let the meta settle and builds evolve, the game came out 18 days ago, and people are already screaming to the sky how bad it is. Those same people are the ones who were screaming when HotS came out, and now saying that it is amazing. Calm the hell down. I really like TvP interactions, TvZ, and even PvT and PvZ, just because mirror matchups are in a weird place right now doesnt make the game bad. It means that players are still adapting to new styles of their own race and using what they know in a limited time. | ||
|
Poopi
France12762 Posts
The second post is weird because HotS is easily the worst game of the Starcraft 2 Trilogy. | ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
On November 29 2015 08:25 vult wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2015 06:59 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the bunker upgrade buff would break the game. I hope ultras get a little more armor so zerg can somehow compete with terrans ground army. And how would you improve ravagers? The 13 range upgrade blizzard added was quite good, don't know why it got removed. + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. Wow seriously? you have such extreme reactions given there is a paperthin meta right now and the game has been played professionally in 2 tournaments. Your idea of more armor for ultras is atrocious, terrans already struggle vs +8 armor ultras, let alone adding more armor. A psi-storm-sized corrosive bile that lands faster? you must be joking, because blinding cloud+fungal+storm bile would be extremely broken, let alone broken in the early game. Ravagers vT are already in a weird place in the early game, with 3-4 biles being able to safely break bunkers. What is your idea of balance? why are you so toxic about the future of this game? if you want a game revolved completely around a stale meta and your idea that bio/mine vs LBM was the GOAT RTS interaction? Are you trolling? Because you are not swag_bro. That first quote is sarcasm. The 2nd one is how he really feels about LotV. Personally disagree with everything he said but he's free to state his opinion. Although he could be less toxic about it, I agree. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 29 2015 08:25 vult wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2015 06:59 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the bunker upgrade buff would break the game. I hope ultras get a little more armor so zerg can somehow compete with terrans ground army. And how would you improve ravagers? The 13 range upgrade blizzard added was quite good, don't know why it got removed. + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. Wow seriously? you have such extreme reactions given there is a paperthin meta right now and the game has been played professionally in 2 tournaments. Your idea of more armor for ultras is atrocious, terrans already struggle vs +8 armor ultras, let alone adding more armor. A psi-storm-sized corrosive bile that lands faster? you must be joking, because blinding cloud+fungal+storm bile would be extremely broken, let alone broken in the early game. Ravagers vT are already in a weird place in the early game, with 3-4 biles being able to safely break bunkers. What is your idea of balance? why are you so toxic about the future of this game? if you want a game revolved completely around a stale meta and your idea that bio/mine vs LBM was the GOAT RTS interaction? Are you trolling? Because you are not swag_bro. Pretty sure MockHammill is trolling. Char hates LotV and wants 3 base deathball back, seeing as he plays Protoss. | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
On November 29 2015 08:33 Lunareste wrote: Pretty sure MockHammill is trolling. Char hates LotV and wants 3 base deathball back, seeing as he plays Protoss. My post wasnt really directed at MockHammill, at least he wasn't over the top with his post and jumping to conclusions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24460 Posts
Will definitely get more of an idea about the state of the game when more tournaments are played and especially when Koreans start to show what they've figured out about LoTV | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
PvP has looked very fun. PvT looks very fun when the game gets past the early game Protoss shannenigans. Though I wouldn't mind to see a PvT that isn't bio after 5years of it TvT is kind of stupid. Tankdrops make engagements very stupid and are way too easy to perform offensively. You basically always find an angle from which you can do free damage and then it's checkmate because then the defender has to give up his defenders advantage and attack into a siegeline. Liberators make Mech very weak. TvZ feels worse than ever. 8armor ultras are just stupid, nerfed larva efficiency massively weakens zergling/baneling play. The only upside is that for the moment the ravager finally gives zerg a second viable style. ZvZ is bad. The early game is a shitfest, though admittetly always has been. The way you are forced to rush a third base during the ling/bling stage makes it so that half of the time you build 25drones and then you spam zerglings for 10mins. No brains, just zerglings. After that the ravager/roach wars with possible lurker transitions are a lot of fun though. Still a worse matchup than WoL ZvZ but at least if you get out of the early game it's better than HotS. Which doesn't mean the matchup is good, it just doesn't feel like the worst stage of diarrhea anymore under certain circumstances. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13969 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On November 29 2015 08:30 Poopi wrote: The second post is weird because HotS is easily the worst game of the Starcraft 2 Trilogy. I think it is way to early to judge that. We still have quite a few of the problems from HOTS that weren't fixed as well as several new potential issues. I can very much imagine LOTV being the worst. I can also imagine it being the best of course, so only time will tell. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
PvT: looking good, use of adept prism blinkstalker push/allin should be monitored, but no data for action. Macro looks decent, no real meta, seen everything but carrier and BC used PvZ: Lurker looks hart, maybe reduce hp, make borrow 3 sec + fast burrow upgrade (like widow mine burrow times). I wouldnt mind Rav to be either needing a hatch-lvl upgraded roach warren or lair. But not really data for that. Tvt: Tank-Chess on Crack without the fun. Flying tanks look stupid, seem to be stupid, but no data. TvZ: Looks broken. But only because Foreigner Terrans looked broken lvl bad. Maybe Ravanger too stronk against tank and lib, maybe not, we will see with more data. ZvZ: Ravanger vs Ravanger is a decent upgrade to roach roach | ||
|
yoshi245
United States2969 Posts
On November 29 2015 05:49 Thaniri wrote: No terran no carin' Nailed it perfectly. | ||
|
Popkiller
3415 Posts
When I see Terran play, it looks essentially like the same Terran I've been seeing for years. Liberators don't change the dynamic enough. Protoss and Zerg feel like they've actually been updated. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
your idea that bio/mine vs LBM was the GOAT RTS interaction? why not? what's better? | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On November 29 2015 09:31 Popkiller wrote: When I see Terran play, it looks essentially like the same Terran I've been seeing for years. Liberators don't change the dynamic enough. Protoss and Zerg feel like they've actually been updated. Bio is all Terran has. Not surprising. I think T will eventually evolve to making Sky Terran a standard thing. I can't imagine bio remaining as standard now with the immense splash damage and Ultras. Also feel once Zerg starts using Lurkers better, bio will start getting crushed. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
Vulture/Tank against Protoss or SK Terran against Lurker | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24460 Posts
On November 29 2015 10:00 Lunareste wrote: Vulture/Tank against Protoss or SK Terran against Lurker Those two are pretty great. In SC2 terms I've always preferred Marine-Tank over Bio-Mine vs Ling/Bling/Muta | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On November 29 2015 07:53 Popkiller wrote: Ravagers are cool, I like that a roach can morph into something that can attack air, and corrosive bile is effective but also requires skill to use. Corrosive bile shouldn't work against buildings. It's the dumbest thing around and requires 0 skill. Against units that can move it's fine. | ||
|
huller20
United States112 Posts
| ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
TvT : no opinion. The match-up was already quite disappointing at the end of HotS. LotV TvT didn't look great, but it didn't look worse. ZvZ : same. Roach vs roach has evolved into roach ravager vs roach ravager, I guess it adds variety. PvZ : looks great. I was sick of blink sentry and it feels refreshing atm. Maybe the fact that ravagers can kill structures feels a bit dumb though. PvT : I think P early/mid game strength could be toned down a bit. Same for liberators. Otherwise the mu feels great, with the adept really making gateway based armies viable vs bio. ZvT : I miss WoL. | ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
Something that has me excited is that Protoss adepts are so powerful in direct engagements, you can actually build a normal composition with them that challenges roach / hydra with mostly gateway units. Its definitely a lot more diverse, and even terran got plenty of new strategies. Zerg feels a little too strong at the moment. Disruptors are really carrying the matchup in PvZ | ||
|
KrOeastbound
England59 Posts
On November 29 2015 08:02 blade55555 wrote: rofl yeah if you like to play turtling until deathball. Glad you think that's what a proper RTS should be. We all have different ideas of what makes a good RTS. Some of us like playing our favourite race, say Zerg, and a-moving skill compositions like roach/hydra over superior players and thinking this is how things should be. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On November 29 2015 10:43 weikor wrote: Its really a step up from Hots gameplay. Something that has me excited is that Protoss adepts are so powerful in direct engagements, you can actually build a normal composition with them that challenges roach / hydra with mostly gateway units. Its definitely a lot more diverse, and even terran got plenty of new strategies. Zerg feels a little too strong at the moment. Disruptors are really carrying the matchup in PvZ Yey a complete a move unit that is very powerful. Exactly what sc2 needed. But you're right, in HotS you couldn't fight roach hydra with pure gateway units ... oh wait. You must have missed the blink sentry vs roach hydra micro battles, back when micro actually mattered. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
PvP has also improved significantly. I particularly like the mid game when both players only have a few disruptors and its an intense positional and micro battle. However, I'm not a fan of when the disruptors hit a critical number and tempests have to be made. | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
On November 29 2015 10:53 Charoisaur wrote: Yey a complete a move unit that is very powerful. Exactly what sc2 needed. But you're right, in HotS you couldn't fight roach hydra with pure gateway units ... oh wait. You must have missed the blink sentry vs roach hydra micro battles, back when micro actually mattered. I mean, its not a complete a-move unit, it has utility outside direct engagements in full blown battles. With your philosophy, all units are a-move units. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On November 29 2015 10:53 Charoisaur wrote: Yey a complete a move unit that is very powerful. Exactly what sc2 needed. But you're right, in HotS you couldn't fight roach hydra with pure gateway units ... oh wait. You must have missed the blink sentry vs roach hydra micro battles, back when micro actually mattered. I don't know what you have against A move so much. Imo that's about half of what Starcraft is about, with the other half being the macro and correctly positioning yourself, keeping map control etc.. If you like micro to the max you should check out Warcraft 3. "Micro" units freshen it up of course but I really don't want it to become a game where you assemble an army where every unit has some kind of skill and battles become about just using various combinations of very powerful skills and the focal point of the game becomes the micro in battles with quickly maxed out armies, as opposed to the actual economy of the game. And that part is pretty bad in LotV imo. Seems like you max out super fast and the biggest economy advantage you could imagine to realistically happen in this game is of absolutely no help if you lose a big fight because you mismicroed against a one-shot AOE once. This is from an observer perspective. From a player perspective it also just sucks to play your heart out all game and then you lose it because you make a single objectively small mistake (not splitting correctly for example and losing a bunch of units too much) in one moment of the game, and you just can't come back even though you might have a huge econ advantage (because of a huge steamroll factor). Regarding micro btw, I feel like a lot of the units that require some kind of micro right now are pretty boring and don't rely on the skill of the user very much actually. Lurkers might actually be the best with regards to this, I still think it's a pretty useless unit but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise when I see some pro korean split them perfectly and zone control the shit out of an enemy or whatever. On the other hand you mostly have units like the disruptor who literally has a single click attack that will devastate the enemy, takes no skill at all to use whether it does anything or not mostly depends on what your opponent is doing and how they react to it. Most of the micro stuff like this in the game is like this. Ravager bombs, widow mines, etc. Ideally there would be a balance where both players require skill to use a unit (or unit composition) and skill to basically counter the use of that unit, but I can't actually think of many examples here because it always seems to swing one way or the other in this game. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36990 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:54 boxerfred wrote: B-but Lilbow practiced so hard for LotV! FFS boxerfred, you need to keep up with the program. He's clearly practicing for SC3. Didn't you talk to Zealously? | ||
|
Highways
Australia6102 Posts
Terran feels underdone though. Maybe add spider mines to cyclones? | ||
|
Poopi
France12762 Posts
I agree tho that it might be problematic if gaining small advantages over time becomes useless because it's all about the fights. To answer to the question of the OP, I feel the game to be kinda cool to play but as a terran I feel like we weren't given new cool units and/or cool new abilities whereas P/Z got some, so we don't gain much fun, and the fun to play compositions such as bio / mines / medi vs muta ling blings don't seem to be there anymore, so it could have been much better for us unfortunately. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
| ||
|
a4bisu
Australia86 Posts
| ||
|
Ctesias
4595 Posts
In other notes, disruptors in PvP are... peculiar. I hope the match up improves fun-wise going forward. Ravagers, while perhaps not overpowered, seem too good in that they work against everything, especially against Terran. Perhaps it's just because the game is so new, but I really don't like how versatile they are. Overall a decent tournament, but mainly it was interesting because it was the first proper one for Lotv, rather than because of the players, the games or the ending. On November 29 2015 16:42 a4bisu wrote: can anyone point a link for the best games of the tournament? I'm not sure on any links, but Parting vs TY game 3 and 4 were some of the best games I've seen in a long time. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
oh and put some half-decent maps in the pool :/ | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
Ok. Now about the DH. I sit and watched this. Honestly. Trying to see what's "everybody hyping" so much. And all i saw was horrible designed new units (glimpses of much better desgined units called reaver), absense of meta, where mediocre europeans are on par with parting. But most annoying part was that i couldn't figure out why. Why should i go on ladder and startover after 5 years of grinding it. 15 years of BW history is 100k times exciting with 10 units to each side and w/o turning its meta upside down every 3 years. Beauty is in simplicity. | ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
I loved the TY ParTing games 2,3, but in that game they managed to dodge everything for long enough to make the games great. But it's sort of a ridiculous president to set. In game 5 TY just couldn't follow the adepts well enough and he lost. If Parting hadn't Dodged everything with his Stalkers, WP, adepts he would've lost. I feel like missed Dodges will be 20x more common than "amazing micro" in deciding games, which means games will be lost by one player rather than one by the other. What does everyone think of this? Watching Parting fall apart in the final was interesting. Solar followed better than Parting dodged you could maybe say. Except in game 6 which was just a weird game. | ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
LotV viewing experience seems overall way better than HotS, it's refreshing and actually has some new and fun stuff. Game pacing being different is nice, action is a lot more frantic and tense on the whole. I don't have any matchup specific things to say but all in all this was a good sign for the future. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
its really hard to tell how much of that was due to unstable meta and how much due to the game actually being better than HotS that said, im pretty sure now it is superior to HotS in many ways, and i have to take at lest some of my LotV hate back that said, i still think 1) 12 worker start is too much, limits early game builds, combined with the mineral change it feels like expanding is forced too much instead of rewarded. i would have much rather had an eco system that just allows you to build way more stuff the more bases you have 2) kinda connected to that: supply limit is too low imho. this has been true since WoL, but its more visible now due to the huge maps. eg: parting vs showtime - just imagine how much more fun that would have been with even bigger armies or the potential to build up more units for harass. i think the supply ceiling will become a big issue in this game: it is way too fast to reach, and with all the zoning tools one can easily envision game where both players build up huge banks. i never liked the idea of banking money because you are not allowed to build units any more 3) pylon overcharge is just dumb and limits early game aggression and build variety even more in any matchup that includes protoss. i thought the idea was to shorten the phase of the game where nothing happens? then maybe dont give toss a tool to shut down any form of early aggression? 4) PvP is lots of fun to watch now, impossible to play at my skill level though. and if the meta really settles on stalker/disruptor/tempest vs each other i will get sick of watching this really soon. also, it might be way too volatile 5) all matchups still center around dragoon-like big high-hp ranged units too much, that has been one of the biggest issues with sc2 from the start. melee units are limited to early game and harassment. marauders are still great vs protoss post-nerf even with disruptors, psi storm and colossus on the field. just shows how broken this unit really used to be. 6) corrosive bile should deal less dmg to buildings 7) i think liberators are jus silly | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
1. Economy change is a huge success, aggression is rewarded while turtling is punished, with both players struggling to retain large banks as resources must constantly be spent on expanding/producing units to secure map control I see way more skirmishes and very few turtle games 1.a. Multitasking is much more rewarded, there is just alot more shit to do at a given time compared to HOTS. 2. Deathballing is weaker, units like the Lurker/Liberator/Disruptor make deathballing way worse, which is good for the game. 3. Disruptors are carrying way way too hard in ZvP and are the go to unit in their mirror so I don't know about that, probably best to let the pros figure it out. 3. TvP is an interesting match up to watch? Since when? Oh yea, since LOTV, wow this match up became awesome, so much action, 4. PvP seems even more retarded then it once was but hey Disruptor wars better then Colossus wars I guess? 5. These maps are horrid, before any balance changes at all come out can we get a pool of community made maps? I don't know why Blizzard repeats this same song and dance but they have routinely shown that they have zero ability to make competitive level maps. 6. HOTS to LOTV feel way more fresh and exciting then WOL to HOTS where very few things were changed. 7. Pylon Overcharge needs to be nerfed, it just looks too strong/spammable, much like Corrosive Bile. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
Horrible to play. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
- Less boring minutes where nothing happens due to a higher worker start. - Seems to be less Deathball gameplay in general. In HotS it often was just Protoss (and sometimes Zerg, rarely mech Terran) camping & trying to get max units and then attacking once and GG. - PvT improved a ton, all games that didn't end by Protoss cheese were great. - Lurkers, Liberators and Disruptors all seemed to fun to me, they all allow for defensive and offensive tools. Things that could improve / I didn't like: - For PvP Disruptor battles could become boring. I blame it on their rather fast movement speed (at least if you compare it with Reavers) which allows for retreats. - PvZ didn't impress me mostly, but some longer games were good. Unfortunately most of them ended in cheese, so I can't really give an opinion except I didn't like those. - ZvZ doesn't seem to have changed much, though IDK how you could change it. I like to watch ling / baneling though and that happened sometimes, so I guess it's fine. - I didn't catch many TvT's yet, so I can't really comment, though the Tank pickup does seem problematical from what I've seen. I doubt it adds to the quality of the TvT's. | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:22 Topdoller wrote: The game is looking good, leave it as is for 6 - 12 months and let the pros work it all out. I would definalty take a second look at the maps, some of them look horrible in design This, absolutely this. Units like disruptor and lurker are exactly what this game needed - strong units that are able to hold position but at the same time with good control you can mitigate the damage done and kill them. The same goes for liberator (althought im not a big fan since i´d rather see ground mech work) and pre-nerf WOL Siege tank. If you want to change this, look at the maps first. Let's see if blizzard learned something over the years. | ||
|
zerge
Germany162 Posts
On November 29 2015 03:51 [PkF] Wire wrote: I would probably like a slight lurker toning down (maybe slower spikes or longer cooldown), a longer cooldown on the adept shade (and maybe including the ability to 2 shot workers in the upgrade) and the +shields damage removal on disruptor. Otherwise the games are OK. It's still the beginning and things are still being figured out but it's been fun to watch. In which games did the lurker seem too strong? In the findals and the couple of other games i watched they didm't seem to be very useful. The only case where i could maybe see them beeing too strong would be in a defensive posture with static defense and vipers but we haven't seen that right? I agree on the adept it seems a bit too easy to get out of bad positions with them for such a cheap unit. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:45 zerge wrote: In which games did the lurker seem too strong? In the findals and the couple of other games i watched they didm't seem to be very useful. The only case where i could maybe see them beeing too strong would be in a defensive posture with static defense and vipers but we haven't seen that right? I agree on the adept it seems a bit too easy to get out of bad positions with them for such a cheap unit. The Lurker has a timing window where it's pretty strong, however IMO in the late game well controlled Disruptors shut it down hard as we have seen multiple times yesterday. | ||
|
GuoJing
France30 Posts
| ||
|
kottbullar
Australia489 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:16 insitelol wrote: It's funny and painfull at the same time to see some people still hyping this. Lol at DK one hundred times and his futile attempts to make this game "more popular". I must remind you guys that when hots came out there was a considarable increase in viewership (compared to WoL at its end), like ~ 100k for a tournament finals was standard for the first few months. How good and appealing your LotV is, when viewership DROPS compared to HotS last tournaments? (ok, at most it stays the same). Is this how it is meant to be? Yes, i hate this expansion so fucking much. It's a complete failure. In the first place because it ruined a 5 years meta for NOTHING. Literrally NOTHING. Ye, you can laugh at this and say some obvious bs like: "bla-bla-bla just try and learn new things its so exciting, it's a new level for this game where everything will be more balanced and OF COURSE more fun to watch". Fuck yes. Obviously. We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game just because DK thinks these.. so to say... "changes" will make SC better. Ok. Now about the DH. I sit and watched this. Honestly. Trying to see what's "everybody hyping" so much. And all i saw was horrible designed new units (glimpses of much better desgined units called reaver), absense of meta, where mediocre europeans are on par with parting. But most annoying part was that i couldn't figure out why. Why should i go on ladder and startover after 5 years of grinding it. 15 years of BW history is 100k times exciting with 10 units to each side and w/o turning its meta upside down every 3 years. Beauty is in simplicity. 100% agree. People are only hyping this up because it's new and "fresh", but you'll see, once the meta stabilizes there will be very few people who still say it's better than HotS. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:16 insitelol wrote: It's funny and painfull at the same time to see some people still hyping this. Lol at DK one hundred times and his futile attempts to make this game "more popular". I must remind you guys that when hots came out there was a considarable increase in viewership (compared to WoL at its end), like ~ 100k for a tournament finals was standard for the first few months. How good and appealing your LotV is, when viewership DROPS compared to HotS last tournaments? (ok, at most it stays the same). Is this how it is meant to be? Yes, i hate this expansion so fucking much. It's a complete failure. In the first place because it ruined a 5 years meta for NOTHING. Literrally NOTHING. Ye, you can laugh at this and say some obvious bs like: "bla-bla-bla just try and learn new things its so exciting, it's a new level for this game where everything will be more balanced and OF COURSE more fun to watch". Fuck yes. Obviously. We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game just because DK thinks these.. so to say... "changes" will make SC better. Ok. Now about the DH. I sit and watched this. Honestly. Trying to see what's "everybody hyping" so much. And all i saw was horrible designed new units (glimpses of much better desgined units called reaver), absense of meta, where mediocre europeans are on par with parting. But most annoying part was that i couldn't figure out why. Why should i go on ladder and startover after 5 years of grinding it. 15 years of BW history is 100k times exciting with 10 units to each side and w/o turning its meta upside down every 3 years. Beauty is in simplicity. On November 29 2015 18:04 Charoisaur wrote: 100% agree. People are only hyping this up because it's new and "fresh", but you'll see, once the meta stabilizes there will be very few people who still say it's better than HotS. let me just get this straight: there are people that think completely figured-out meta with mainly the same three builds happening in all matchups for years IS A GOOD THING? " We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game " ARE YOU SERIOUS? is "figuring out the meta" in sc2 considered to be a boring chore like levelling up a char for endgame in a fucking MMORPG? the most fun i get out of a RTS is figuring out what strategies are the best boggles my mind. best case for sc2 actually would be for a big change to hit every season. can only see that happening via more community input or mods tho | ||
|
Legobiten
71 Posts
On November 29 2015 18:24 summerloud wrote: let me just get this straight: there are people that think completely figured-out meta with mainly the same three builds happening in all matchups for years IS A GOOD THING? " We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game " ARE YOU SERIOUS? is "figuring out the meta" in sc2 considered to be a boring chore like levelling up a char for endgame in a fucking MMORPG? the most fun i get out of a RTS is figuring out what strategies are the best boggles my mind. best case for sc2 actually would be for a big change to hit every season. can only see that happening via more community input or mods tho AMEN!! | ||
|
Creager
Germany1889 Posts
Terran got 0 tech choices in every match now, limited to opening bio/tank/medivac, as a player it's just depressing, Liberator ground mode is super strong, but overall I don't like it. Protoss is still as gimmicky, but has Disruptors now which seem to be insanely good right now, even better with the new Warp Prism. PvP looked fun, but I'm pretty sure that will wear off soon enough, given how stressful that interaction is to the players. Overall it's so much faster with an economy ramping up significantly earlier, which seems to favor Zerg a bit right now, harassing is stronger than ever, everyone needs to rally between main and natural due to anxiety Overall my impression is Blizzard really tried to improve the viewer experience without actually thinking about what that means to the players (which should be the most important target group imo). | ||
|
Liman
Serbia681 Posts
| ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 29 2015 18:24 summerloud wrote: let me just get this straight: there are people that think completely figured-out meta with mainly the same three builds happening in all matchups for years IS A GOOD THING? " We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game " ARE YOU SERIOUS? is "figuring out the meta" in sc2 considered to be a boring chore like levelling up a char for endgame in a fucking MMORPG? the most fun i get out of a RTS is figuring out what strategies are the best boggles my mind. best case for sc2 actually would be for a big change to hit every season. can only see that happening via more community input or mods tho Literally any classic kind of sport. Ok, chess. Chess is out there for thousands of years to an extent noone even remembers who invented it. Does core rules, no, just "any" rules are being changed every fucking time someoone thinks it's not enough viewers? it's not fun? or any other kind of bullshit? The problem is you treat SC2 as "some funny stuff i like to play and watch every now and then", while i treat it like a sport. Yes it's just a hobby to me. But i take it seriously. Your logic is shallow. It's a fucking consumer mindset: "I'm so bored lets change the fuck out of everything every season, i don't play it so let those retards who actually dedicate time to the game feel like scrubs". And no, "figuring what strategies are best" is not fun. The truth is you can't see further than you nose, because game evolves step by step. "new stratejiezz" are just the beggining. First, there are some new strategies, then those strategies evolve into newer strategies and so on. Repeating brings new quality. It actually. takes. some. fucking. time. If you think Hots is completely figured out you delude yourself. Like soccer was figured out in the 50s. Yes. Why is it n1 sport in the world. Because they fucking inventing new strategies. But i guess it's too complicated for you. You are just watching people wasting their lives playing video games on internet. It's so boring isn't it? | ||
|
ZombieFrog
United States87 Posts
| ||
|
Legobiten
71 Posts
On November 29 2015 19:15 insitelol wrote: Literally any classic kind of sport. Ok, chess. Chess is out there for thousands of years to an extent noone even remembers who invented it. Does core rules, no, just "any" rules are being changed every fucking time someoone thinks it's not enough viewers? it's not fun? or any other kind of bullshit? The problem is you treat SC2 as "some funny stuff i like to play and watch every now and then", while i treat it like a sport. Yes it's just a hobby to me. But i take it seriously. Your logic is shallow. It's a fucking consumer mindset: "I'm so bored lets change the fuck out of everything every season, i don't play it so let those retards who actually dedicate time to the game feel like scrubs". And no, "figuring what strategies are best" is not fun. The truth is you can't see further than you nose, because game evolves step by step. "new stratejiezz" are just the beggining. First, there are some new strategies, then those strategies evolve into newer strategies and so on. Repeating brings new quality. It actually. takes. some. fucking. time. If you think Hots is completely figured out you delude yourself. Like soccer was figured out in the 50s. Yes. Why is it n1 sport in the world. Because they fucking inventing new strategies. But i guess it's too complicated for you. You are just watching people wasting their lives playing video games on internet. It's so boring isn't it? How can you compare video games to any classic kind of sport? To develop a classic sport it takes, as you say, many many years (hundreds/thousands). That will never happen in video games. Sure, at some point the game becomes as balanced as it gets but at that point the game will be outdated. The pace in video games can't be compared to classic games in that way I think. I hope LotV will become stable so that the meta can change without new units breaking it all the time (like Hearthstone, I can't keep up unless I quit my job and sell my family) but I think it's been a lot of fun and good for the game with changes from WoL to HotS into LotV. It was always planned as three steps and I think blizzard will fine tune it to be a great game until SC3 comes | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 29 2015 19:42 Legobiten wrote: How can you compare video games to any classic kind of sport? Just like that. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
| ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
| ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:22 Topdoller wrote: The game is looking good, leave it as is for 6 - 12 months and let the pros work it all out. I would definalty take a second look at the maps, some of them look horrible in design | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
JoeCool
Germany2517 Posts
While there are still a lot of things that need to be figured out, this DH gave plenty of insight into the things that have changed with LotV and confirmed my expectations. This game became way too fast for my taste! Maxed out at 8 or 9 minutes? Games beeing constantly over before the 10 minute mark? Still almost zero comeback chances? Plus, I do remember a topic where lots of people were complaining about the short battles in SC2 and suggested a couple of changes to make fights/units last longer. It seems like LotV did exactly the opposite with introducing the Lurker, Liberator and the Disrupter. These units make whole armies vanish in the blink of an eye... I guess Ill support a couple of tournaments by watching them but buying/playing LotV? Nah ... probably not. I really did like what HotS has become in the past 3-6 months. And players like $O$ prove that there are still things/strategies to be figured out... at least, if you are creative enough. Edit: Despite beeing a new game, I felt that the viewernumbers were quite bad for the first big tournament in LotV. :-/ | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
| ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Adept + Warp Prism seems really strong. Not unstoppable but unless you have very good micro you can end up losing your entire mineral line very fast. The only thing I did keep noticing was that TY never raised the depots between his main and natural whilst the Adepts were transferring. Raising them just for a few seconds to deny the teleport could help, but in every game they got amazing amounts of worker kills even though TY was there to defend. 10-15 SCVs lost was the minimum each time. Since they only cost 100/25 and murder anything Light, it feels off when you consider the original nerf to Blue Flame Hellions. I dislike the Adept because it limits Terran's options even further in the early game. You have to have a decent amount of Marine/Marauder or else its GG when the Warp Prism shows up. I think Adepts themselves (as in their raw stats) are alright but they can come so early with a Warp Prism and then teleport around. Maybe if something is done about their teleport in the early game it would be a little easier to hold without outright nerfing the unit. Maybe if they took additional damage whilst the ghost image is active? Beyond that, Marine/Marauder after all these years of TvP is still the only way to go. TY made it look strong but I doubt I can dodge Disruptors anywhere near as well or hold a good Adept + Warp Prism attack. Every game TY opened 1/1/1 with Marine, Cyclone, Tank, Medivac/Liberator. Whilst I do like 1/1/1 openings in general, it currently feels like it is the only way to open that doesn't die to Warp Prisms. Any counter attack (such as TY tried with Cloak Banshee) gets outright denied by Pylon Overcharge + observer/oracle/cannon. Liberators feel a bit silly in their damage but at the same time, they're the only thing keeping Terran afloat right now. It was the only thing in all of TY's games that forced Protoss to back off. Pylon Overcharge is still just stupid in my opinion. To this day I honestly still don't get why Protoss needs it when they have the best cheap defensive structure (shoots air, ground, has shields and detects) and can warp-in defensively. It leads to weird situations where pylons can be nearly the only thing needed for defense. Hearing casters say that pylons are doing a lot of damage also just feels silly. Seriously, why does Protoss need Pylon Overcharge? When a Warp Prism drops Adepts into my mineral line and warps in a bunch more, where is my one-click defense button to buy time? I have neither a defensive structure that can shoot ground, or warp units in for defense. I have to run home and pray I get there in time or just not leave my base. I recall the original reason having to do something with stopping the 4gate vs 4gate era, but this is overdoing it. I'd be fine with Warp Prisms if I could atleast return the favor without having to fear a bunch of Pylons getting angry. Hopefully the meta will provide the answers, but I do strongly hope that Terran isn't forced into only one or two builds in early game TvP due to fear of whatever Protoss can throw at them (Oracle, DT, 7gate Blink or Adept + Warp Prism). | ||
Liquid`Bunny
Denmark145 Posts
Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. The economy is also so much better. No more camping with 66 workers while building the perfect composition, which is something that really made HotS stale towards the end. I get that there's still room for a lot of improvement, which i won't talk about here. but i really don't understand why people are being so pessimistic. Everyone i know who actually plays the game a lot thinks it's so much better | ||
|
gloupi78
France25 Posts
| ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
The pace makes for a lot more fun to watch experience than HOTS ever was, the strats are more diverse and this is just the beginning. I am very much looking forward to some sick strats in the upcoming tournaments. My 2 cents on Zerg, because thats what I'm interested in: - lurker spikes "feel" like they attack a bit too often so that might get nerfed; although that did not prevent Parting from dealing with them easily. - people say zerg played was allowed to play way too greedy, well zerg is supposed to play greedy to be able to "swarm" and such. The difference is that the race now stands a chance to early pressure which in HOTS was so horribly weak. But I do agree that theres a very thin line between having a chance to hold early pressure, and becoming simply way too efficient for P and T to deal with. So that topic might get a lot of attention from DKs balancing. Also, PvP disruptor vs disruptor dodgeball wars has the potential to become very boring imho, like the SH stalemate games of HOTS were before the SH nerf. Also I am extremely glad that forcefields are where they should be now, a solid defensive tool but that can also be countered smartly, as compared to HOTS where they were simply ridiculously powerful. Also, Snute is awesome at casting ZvZs. The pace of the game gives casters a lot more fun as well, given the amount of "OOH!" and "AAH!"s every 30 seconds. The entire expansion just improved the game so much on many levels. I am SO looking forward to GSL and Proleague. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
The new economy and anti-deathball units really improved the game a lot. Oh and Parting and Showtime showed, that all the balance whining is completely BS once again. PvZ looked way better than people made it out to be and we should just trust Blizzard, they always managed to balance the game so far. We need way more time than 2 weeks, before crying imba imba imba. A better mappool is what I look forward to the most, it could've made the tournament a lot better, especially the final. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
 PartinG vs  Solar finals were quite funny though the games were not polished at all. All those disruptors, ravagers, lurkers moments are cool. Can't wait to see some more polished meta and high level play in LotV | ||
|
ETisME
12329 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote: LotV is definitely a better game than HotS. It's a lot more fun to play because all the micro abilities makes for much more variance in gameplay. In HotS there were so many times where you could tell that 1 army would win no matter what, but LotV has more potential for cool plays. Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. The economy is also so much better. No more camping with 66 workers while building the perfect composition, which is something that really made HotS stale towards the end. I get that there's still room for a lot of improvement, which i won't talk about here. but i really don't understand why people are being so pessimistic. Everyone i know who actually plays the game a lot thinks it's so much better I think disruptor PvP is just weird, and pretty frustrating to play/ watch. It's cool in low numbers but once it gets to 5 or 6 on both sides, it gets worse. That being said, we saw how it is evolving in front of our eyes, it was a really cool moment. Not saying colossus deathball is always better but we had more harass and more engagement tricks imo such as flanking with zealots from the side etc. But overall the game has improved in both viewing and playing. Hope it stays this way and the meta settles down into a good and fun metagame. | ||
|
bypLy
757 Posts
| ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
On November 29 2015 21:41 bypLy wrote: i am so glad for Lilbow about his great performance at DH. I guess practicing lotv in favour of blizzcon has really paid for him wow, that was savage its a process, #Ibelieve | ||
|
cutler
Germany609 Posts
On November 29 2015 21:41 bypLy wrote: i am so glad for Lilbow about his great performance at DH. I guess practicing lotv in favour of blizzcon has really paid for him It put a smile on my face to see him fail early group stage. I know it is rude to celebrate someone failure..but in this case...i think he should retire after this performance. | ||
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Then we wait a few months and players start to abuse their stuff a lot more, 'imba' strategies and army compositions get figured out and in the end it all comes down to whichever army is more cost effective because that's how the economy works in this game. I think we will have lots and lots of great games regardless though, that's just how korean starcraft works :D | ||
|
Geos13
437 Posts
I love the disruptor. It is an exciting unit to watch and makes me want to play sc. It is so much better than colossus balls. A speed nerf may be nice so as to punish out of position disruptor armies. I'm concerned about the transition to tempest in the late game. That unit still seems incredibly boring. As a protoss the adept looked great but I can appreciate it may be to powerful. It is also really fun to watch in the early game. Ravagers are cool. Seem well balanced. Add another great positional element. I thought Lurkers actually seemed a little weak. The protoss was able to overwhelm them and break out of the contain. They were also really awesome to watch. I like the role the liberator plays in locking down an area but I really dislike that it is flying. Overall was a good addition to the game. Medivac tank is really cool. The other new terrain unit seemed really meh. I kinda feel bad for terran as it did feel the game changed the least for them. I like that bases mine out faster but I dislike starting at a higher worker count. The early game was fun. I always enjoyed worker micro, scouting and first few unit micro. It was a distinct and fun part of the game. Overall everything seems great and I hope Blizzard just lets the players develop the meta for awhile without any drastic patchs. See you on the ladder. | ||
|
pmp10
3274 Posts
But that's to be expected since meta isn't settled yet. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote: LotV is definitely a better game than HotS. It's a lot more fun to play because all the micro abilities makes for much more variance in gameplay. In HotS there were so many times where you could tell that 1 army would win no matter what, but LotV has more potential for cool plays. Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. The economy is also so much better. No more camping with 66 workers while building the perfect composition, which is something that really made HotS stale towards the end. I get that there's still room for a lot of improvement, which i won't talk about here. but i really don't understand why people are being so pessimistic. Everyone i know who actually plays the game a lot thinks it's so much better disruptor wars definitely is so much cooler than max out on lazer for me disruptor wars is the very essence of why sc2 is awesome. It heavily rewards the player with better mechanics and multitasking, its fast paced andit requires constant focus. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On November 29 2015 21:45 xtorn wrote: wow, that was retarded its a process, #Ibelieve FTFY ZvT: Seems to be way worse off. Between the decrease of resources per base, less larva per inject, liberators shitting on mutas and the constant expanding and manage said expansions zerg would have to do to keep up with economy I fear ling bling muta is no longer viable. lingbling muta vs bio mine created some of the coolest gameplay ive ever seen (in my opinion) Roach ravager seem like a boring combo incapable of defending vs drops and impossible to go past 4 bases on (on some maps it seems to difficult to even keep 4 bases as Z). TvT: I like the bio tank play for now but I fear that as long as we have flying siege tanks and the current eco mech nor pure bio will no longer be an option as mobile forces are the key to victory. TvP: So far it seems awesome. Im glad Terran can once again apply early pressure onto protoss. I like the positional play liberators and disruptors add to the game. ZvZ: full on aggression from the get go, possibly due to how wonky maps are right now. Lots of ling bling wars which I personally find very cool, as long as theres a way to get out of it. Hoping for more refined builds to come along and save us from the mass hatch tech. ZvP: Finally protoss cant spam blinkstalkers + forcefieldbots and march to victory without the zerg being able to counter it! I personally LOVE how ravagers and lurkers seem to shut down deathballplay. I really like how if protoss wants to all-in they better dedicate to it now. my only fear is that it seems equally difficult to push into disruptors, which means that zerg players wont go off creep before hivetech (I think vipers and broodlords would be a good way to deal with them). I see the potential for really cool positional play and in your face aggression but it might as well swing the other way and become defensive and stale. PvP went from being my least favorite matchup to my top 3. Loving the disruptor wars! They seem incredibly difficult to play, very rewarding for good multitaskers and I hope that when the metagame develops people will find ways to flank the disruptors and whatnot to break the defensive player. TL;DR: All matchups apart from ZvT seems to have been improved. Theyre more reliant on mechanics and multitasking, less about turtling and building the perfect army (for now, this might change when zerg players realise how difficult it is to push into disruptors compared to sit on creep and tech). Mobile armies seem to be a must, which may lead to less diversity. Protoss might need a better ground to air unit? I cant wait to see the gameplay and builds get more refined as players progress. | ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On November 29 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote: TvZ - MUCH worse. bio mine vs ling bane muta was the greatest unit interaction in RTS history and now that's hardly played anymore. TvP - better than post-mine buff tvp but worse than pre-mine-buff tvp. Chargelot archon templar vs bio was more fun imo. PvZ - Worse. Instead of exciting blink sentry vs roach hydra play with constant fighting and positional battles we now have boring blink disruptor play where you pray to land a huge disruptor shot to win the game. TvT - 1000 times worse. lol tankivacs ruin the matchup and mech is dead. PvP - I always thought nothing is as bad as collossus wars but the disruptor wars showed me: it gets even worse. ZvZ - Basically the same, just that you have to dodge ravager shots here and there. Economy: terrible, comebacks are nearly impossible, once you fall behind you lose. Super stressful to play. the 12 worker start heavily limits buildorders. 2 base timings or pressure builds weaker because you run out of ressources. Overall LotV feels like a huge downgrade from HotS. a shame that we have to stick with this garbage for the next years. Some people seem to like it but it's only because it's new. Once the meta stabilizes you'll wish that HotS would still be played. Fortunately HotS Ladder is still going strong, if you want to play a proper RTS you can join me there. rofl how wrong you are... The biggest thing, of all this, is thank god that colossus is finally gone. It was a badly designed unit. The disruptor is a nicely designed unit and make for amazing games. Suddenly, it's possible for protoss to come back into a game, WITHOUT having to resort to a gamble DT play hoping for opponent to forget detection (please remove DTs from the game). The lurker is, has and should always be a strong unit if ignored. You're not supposed to attack into lurkers, just as you're not supposed to attack into siege tanks or liberators. TvT has some cool dynamic play right now. Mech is currently not used, but we're only a few weeks into the game. People will figure out how to mech, do not worry. LOTV has been great so far. | ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
The lurker is, has and should always be a strong unit if ignored. You're not supposed to attack into lurkers, just as you're not supposed to attack into siege tanks or liberators. very good point | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On November 29 2015 19:15 insitelol wrote: Literally any classic kind of sport. Ok, chess. Chess is out there for thousands of years to an extent noone even remembers who invented it. Does core rules, no, just "any" rules are being changed every fucking time someoone thinks it's not enough viewers? it's not fun? or any other kind of bullshit? The problem is you treat SC2 as "some funny stuff i like to play and watch every now and then", while i treat it like a sport. Yes it's just a hobby to me. But i take it seriously. Your logic is shallow. It's a fucking consumer mindset: "I'm so bored lets change the fuck out of everything every season, i don't play it so let those retards who actually dedicate time to the game feel like scrubs". And no, "figuring what strategies are best" is not fun. The truth is you can't see further than you nose, because game evolves step by step. "new stratejiezz" are just the beggining. First, there are some new strategies, then those strategies evolve into newer strategies and so on. Repeating brings new quality. It actually. takes. some. fucking. time. If you think Hots is completely figured out you delude yourself. Like soccer was figured out in the 50s. Yes. Why is it n1 sport in the world. Because they fucking inventing new strategies. But i guess it's too complicated for you. You are just watching people wasting their lives playing video games on internet. It's so boring isn't it? your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
It's true but you also wouldn't see tanks or liberators rush to your natural and siege inside it. There are ways for zerg to force you to engage them if they ever catch you out of position, and with the fast expanding rate, they are likely to do so. That being said I don't think it's that's bad, PartinG won the game where Solar sieged his natural in that way. | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
| ||
|
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
Dreamhack was a great tournament. Showtime and Parting effectively established the PvP metagame with a single series. It was nail biting and intense. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On November 29 2015 23:31 sd_andeh wrote: The lurker is, has and should always be a strong unit if ignored. You're not supposed to attack into lurkers, just as you're not supposed to attack into siege tanks or liberators. I am curious, with how the Lurker works in LotV its essential a Colossus with a 90° rotate attack, not the cool spikes you had in BW. Why is the Lurker awesome and the Colossus is not ? Just because the Colossus is more mobile and more microable as a result ? I mean I hear all this hate about the Colossus and praise about the lurker and some people that like the lurker also hate the colossus. And I could agree that they are more different if the spikes would still work like in BW ... but not with how they currently work. So that confuses me alot atm. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:30 FeyFey wrote: I am curious, with how the Lurker works in LotV its essential a Colossus with a 90° rotate attack, not the cool spikes you had in BW. Why is the Lurker awesome and the Colossus is not ? Just because the Colossus is more mobile and more microable as a result ? my take on it would be that a) you commit with a lurker as it becomes immobile in order to attack. b) a colossus is constantly mobile, does not collide with other units and have mapaltering robots supporting it which is obviously heavily promoting deathballing. c) due to MSC and again map altering robots a colossus cant as easily overstep its position whereas a lurker works more like a siege tank since it will be instantly punished if you move it just a bit too far. | ||
|
friendlyscv
12 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:16 insitelol wrote: It's funny and painfull at the same time to see some people still hyping this. Lol at DK one hundred times and his futile attempts to make this game "more popular". I must remind you guys that when hots came out there was a considarable increase in viewership (compared to WoL at its end), like ~ 100k for a tournament finals was standard for the first few months. How good and appealing your LotV is, when viewership DROPS compared to HotS last tournaments? (ok, at most it stays the same). Is this how it is meant to be? Yes, i hate this expansion so fucking much. It's a complete failure. In the first place because it ruined a 5 years meta for NOTHING. Literrally NOTHING. Ye, you can laugh at this and say some obvious bs like: "bla-bla-bla just try and learn new things its so exciting, it's a new level for this game where everything will be more balanced and OF COURSE more fun to watch". Fuck yes. Obviously. We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game just because DK thinks these.. so to say... "changes" will make SC better. Ok. Now about the DH. I sit and watched this. Honestly. Trying to see what's "everybody hyping" so much. And all i saw was horrible designed new units (glimpses of much better desgined units called reaver), absense of meta, where mediocre europeans are on par with parting. But most annoying part was that i couldn't figure out why. Why should i go on ladder and startover after 5 years of grinding it. HotS was by far the worst thing to happen to SC2. There was one interesting matchup in the entire game (TvZ) and it soon devolved into a huge shitfest because of mech and swarmhosts. No fucking shit the viewer numbers are low, WoL deathball vs deathball was more interesting than HotS matchups where both players are afraid to move out of their fucking base because the other guy has an unkillable army. Changing the meta isn't a bad thing if the meta was shit to begin with. The fact that you haven't mentioned a single valid reason to hate this game in your post, that you actually even tried to make the argument that HotS was good, and the unnecessary lead designer name drop makes it incredibly obvious that you decided to hate it before you even tried to watch or play it. 15 years of BW history is 100k times exciting with 10 units to each side and w/o turning its meta upside down every 3 years. The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote: HotS was by far the worst thing to happen to SC2. There was one interesting matchup in the entire game (TvZ) and it soon devolved into a huge shitfest because of mech and swarmhosts. No fucking fucking shit the viewer numbers are low, WoL deathball vs deathball was more interesting than HotS matchups where both players are afraid to move out of their fucking base because the other guy has an unkillable army. Changing the meta isn't a bad thing if the meta was shit to begin with. The fact that you haven't mentioned a single valid reason to hate this game in your post, that you actually even tried to make the argument that HotS was good, and the unnecessary lead designer name drop makes it incredibly obvious that you decided to hate it before you even tried to watch or play it. The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. Well I guess it's true that the standards and expectations for lotv are pretty low given how many people kinda straight dislike hots and probably wol as well. Sometimes it seems to me a lot of players never really liked SC2 that much lol :p And there is definitely a big hype train going that I don't see lasting very long at all. | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad so changing the rules in starcraft is equivalent to changing a player in football what is changing a player in starcraft equivalent to then? and what are the meta changes in football and chess equivalent to? i think we can both arrive at the conclusion that your statement is even more absurd than the one you claim to be absurd | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. Well Parting said himself interviewed after his win vs Huk (was it 3-1) that the disruptor shots involve luck so as well as being really tedious to control they give potential to the better player to lose to a bad exchange... I really never liked Colo they are a huge reason why I stopped playing 1.5 month after SC2 release (I play P) but seeing this nonsense of disruptor ensures I will never come back and likely won't keep watching. I can hardly even call this micro, this is tedious explosive handling. Binary running back & forward, high luck factor, way too much potential strength so most of P's damage is in it, way too much potential for ending the game for one mistake of looking away at the wrong time. It kinda seals the deal, in PvP for example, there is little strategy because the only thing that matters is that you are quick enough to dodge or hit once they are on the field. Before it was, mostly, how many colo you get. It's not good, even for a mirror match up. Honestly, the only reason why armies are doing this type of run back & forward is because of the disruptor, it's like the deathballs are repelled to one another because of it. But it's not like the interaction is more interesting as a result, it only lasts longer and is more unstable. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote: The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. Maps are important for balance. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. "LOTV is shit" Wow, I bet debating Starcraft with you is really open minded and reasonable *eye roll* | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote: LotV is definitely a better game than HotS. It's a lot more fun to play because all the micro abilities makes for much more variance in gameplay. In HotS there were so many times where you could tell that 1 army would win no matter what, but LotV has more potential for cool plays. Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. The economy is also so much better. No more camping with 66 workers while building the perfect composition, which is something that really made HotS stale towards the end. I get that there's still room for a lot of improvement, which i won't talk about here. but i really don't understand why people are being so pessimistic. Everyone i know who actually plays the game a lot thinks it's so much better Fully agree about the Disruptor wars. People are jumping on the "this will be stale" train way too soon here, right now players are perfecting their core micro with this, but then imagine this with warp prism/disruptor flanks to control movement, smaller scale blinks to only dodge the shot and let you advance further when you have an advantage and all sorts of composition variations. The Tempests of Showtime vs Parting are a great example, but I see a lot of potential with other things as well - if the balance allows for them at least. Also when players get better they also get very good at multitasking while dodging the disruptor shots. In those macro PvPs there have nearly always been undefended expansions and main bases that could have been raided while the disruptor tennis was going on. I also agree with some of the micro things you mention, in particular those around ravagers and disruptors. However, my personal dislike stems from the strategies in this game. I believe LotV is very restricting strategically. It's not like you can go like: "Hey, tonight I'm going to train my Mech against Protoss." or "I really feel like playing Voidrays against Terran right now." You figure out/copy the best style and then maybe you can vary it slightly, but the strategic depth is pretty much limited to hoping you don't get scouted when you actually try something else. And it also doesn't fix fundamental rush problems in certain matchups. Do I really want to play 5 ZvZs or TvPs to get into a macro game once? It's nice to have 15units in your arsenal, but if most games end after 5mins and the gamewinner was once again that you actually built that roach warren it becomes a very shallow playing experience. Like, I wouldn't mind playing TvZ or ZvP or TvZ or TvT for some hours. But when I log on and all I do is make expansion, then I defense it... OK, time to do it again because my opponent is dead or I'm dead, then I don't feel like playing. Or watching. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:39 NEEDZMOAR wrote: my take on it would be that a) you commit with a lurker as it becomes immobile in order to attack. b) a colossus is constantly mobile, does not collide with other units and have mapaltering robots supporting it which is obviously heavily promoting deathballing. c) due to MSC and again map altering robots a colossus cant as easily overstep its position whereas a lurker works more like a siege tank since it will be instantly punished if you move it just a bit too far. yeah that was the only thing I could come up with as well. And I guess that people see it as a ground unit, while its more a ground/air hybrid, so it can work more like an air siege unit. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:51 Ansibled wrote: Maps are important for balance. yeah maps important bw's meta though wasn't set through maps it's not even the dominant factor, I feel there is exaggeration about this it comes up as an "argument" why SC2's balance isn't on par with BW "yet" even though BW got very little balance patches. But it's not true, BW's maps like Luna then Python then Fighting Spirit as the core/reference maps are only maps that defined you need a natural and a 3rd for each player and a large middle being careful about constructible areas and abusable cliffs.. They are very standard and simple. With proper adjustment you can play today's meta on yesterday's maps. You get a ton of very different maps also that all work and are quite balanced and not played the same. SC2's balance issues are linked to many problems in design, inconsistency. about maps also btw I can't believe that you guys in SC2 put up with having to play on blizzard maps only that seems crazy to me, not only they have never been as good as community at making maps but there is the big problem of map rotation and diversity, one of the things that killed WC3 maybe | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:15 jeeeeohn wrote: With the inclusion of Liberators, Lurkers, and Disruptors, Blizzard is obviously shifting the game's focus from death ball explosions to area of control, which is what SC has always been about as far as I'm concerned. I think they're great units, especially the Disruptor. Dreamhack was a great tournament. Showtime and Parting effectively established the PvP metagame with a single series. It was nail biting and intense. The issue is Blizzard can't shift the focus of the game like that. The deathball problem is due to the very mechanics of the game itself. At best Dreamhack showed us some more tolerable variations of the deathball, but nothing suggested that multiple armies fighting multiple engagements across the maps will become the norm. The DPS of a tightly clumped army still outweighs almost every advantage a split-up army can offer. | ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5523 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit. Also +1 to insimetol, I don't know where this thinking comes from that games must be constantly changing. No traditional sport changes its rules every few weeks and even BW survived without a single balance patch. Balance patches are killing sc2. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote: HotS was by far the worst thing to happen to SC2. There was one interesting matchup in the entire game (TvZ) and it soon devolved into a huge shitfest because of mech and swarmhosts. No fucking fucking shit the viewer numbers are low, WoL deathball vs deathball was more interesting than HotS matchups where both players are afraid to move out of their fucking base because the other guy has an unkillable army. Changing the meta isn't a bad thing if the meta was shit to begin with. The fact that you haven't mentioned a single valid reason to hate this game in your post, that you actually even tried to make the argument that HotS was good, and the unnecessary lead designer name drop makes it incredibly obvious that you decided to hate it before you even tried to watch or play it. The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. Dude did you even play HotS? Most of the games were constant trading and harassing until one player bleeded out. ling bane muta vs bio mine, lol where are deathballs there? Maru style tvp. Is a three pronged attack a deathball to you? Marine tank vs marine tank, constantly fighting for a positional advantage and trying to get good trades. Blink sentry vs roach hydra, constant trading and positional battles. you could maybe argue that pvp and mech vs anything were kind of deathbally (although I don't agree with mech being deathbally because how far you have to spread out to defend all the shenanigans your opponent throws at you.) But because of 2 matchups the entire game is deathbally? Lol. I can tell you something. With that mindset you will find LotV deathbally too. | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation605 Posts
On November 30 2015 02:21 Charoisaur wrote: I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it. A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit. I do. Already more than a hundred games though I bought it around a week ago. It's much more fun than HotS.Though I can say any RTS I've played so far was more fun to play than HotS, even the likes of Dawn of War. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
For PvZ, it seemed like the important things were to have a good early game and tech switches in the late game (specifically mutas). If protoss can come out of the early game well and get some harass/pressure done in the early-mid game, and not get surprised by the zerg's composition in mid-late game, then it feels like a pretty solid matchup for protoss. Get outplayed at any point and you can't possibly be prepared for everything, so you have to start taking risks otherwise you'll gradually fall further and further behind. I think players on both sides of protoss matchups need to get a feel for how disruptors can affect a game, being more of a zoning unit than an actual fighting unit, since everyone is so careful around them. There were times in multiple games where I think both players were not anticipating where the game went, so those phases felt a bit awkward as the players had very slow responses to the parameters of the game at that moment. The power of photon overcharge proved to be a lot more mild than what some lower skill players giving feedback recently would have us believe. Parting did a gateway units rush, attacking into and sometimes just fighting (instead of running away) the overcharged pylons, in a pretty much ideal defensive situation for his opponent, and yet Parting still won by powering through. We saw pretty much all of the weaknesses of PO taken advantage of. Players would leave and come back, taking advantage of the short duration. They'd move their units and still be in range of their target, taking advantage of the short range. They'd kill the MSC, taking advantage of the frail delivery system. They'd kill pylons, since the pylons tend to be spread out due to the PO range being so short, so buildings have no redundant pylons and many PO'd pylons are isolated and can be picked off. And sometimes the MSC just couldn't be in the right spot at the right time, or the player was too busy with other things (being too busy gonna be even more common in LotV), so the manual nature of it was a weakness as well. And there was no general protoss dominance, suggesting that the things that the threat of PO warded off and we never even saw happen were not so significant that protoss gets to take huge shortcuts and get ahead. Protosses were still doing risky builds to keep up with their opponents -- there's no free build order advantage just because you built a MSC and pylons that you were gonna build anyway. And if that's not clear enough in PvZ and PvT, it was actually demonstrated in PvP. Protoss players that were playing defensive and greedier, relying on PO, were getting picked apart by aggressive players. If PO gets nerfed, it's not gonna be because of pro play that we've seen so far. Its use is already limited and even when it is used it doesn't automatically solve a problem. If it gets nerfed, it'll be part of a package of changes to redesign gameplay, not because of racial balance. Or it'll be because it's too strong at lower skill levels and then pros will need some compensation. I think we're gonna see a lot more fighting on multiple fronts. I felt like players aren't comfortable enough yet to give less attention to the things they were giving attention to, so their ability to do so was limited, but the opportunities are definitely there and waiting for a gifted player to use, like Bisu revolutionizing pvz. | ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:15 jeeeeohn wrote: With the inclusion of Liberators, Lurkers, and Disruptors, Blizzard is obviously shifting the game's focus from death ball explosions to area of control, which is what SC has always been about as far as I'm concerned. I think they're great units, especially the Disruptor. Dreamhack was a great tournament. Showtime and Parting effectively established the PvP metagame with a single series. It was nail biting and intense. I agree, it was a good tournament, LotV looks very good and Showtime was a great surprise. I am just afraid that you are right with the new PvP meta and I do not like the disruptor tennis. The luckier one may win an important engagement. I do not mind the disruptor in PvZ and PvT as the other party has always something else to offer, but the long game between Parting and Showtime could go on longer, much longer ... | ||
|
Legobiten
71 Posts
On November 30 2015 02:21 Charoisaur wrote: I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it. A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit. Also +1 to insimetol, I don't know where this thinking comes from that games must be constantly changing. No traditional sport changes its rules every few weeks and even BW survived without a single balance patch. Balance patches are killing sc2. Stop comparing it with traditional sports! It's not traditional sports. It's a new game. Give them time. BW didn't survive without a single balance patch. It was patched a few times. But imbalances weren't so obvious because it was so much more mechanically demanding than SC2. And I think they were lucky with they balance after the BW release. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
At the point where you can shoot disruptor balls without any pause the game becomes a "don't attack me" game. Disruptors basically deny engagements at this point (as seen in pvp parting vs showtime) Is it better than the colossus atm? Yeah probably but colossi were the most boring units ever, so that isn't really saying much. There certainly is tension and VISIBLE micro involved though, that is the positive aspect for sure | ||
|
friendlyscv
12 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. That's because balance overhauls weren't possible, so maps had to change to accommodate the various imbalances between the races. Acting like it was some conscious decision by the BW team to never address imbalance is beyond delusional. The shit UI and retarded unit pathing also made BW a struggle to play, making controlling big armies very difficult and impractical. SC2 doesn't have these tech limitations, so "shiny micro abilities" are one of the ways to make interesting units that take skill to use while simultaneously discouraging deathball play. | ||
|
kottbullar
Australia489 Posts
I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it. A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit. Interesting. As an active player myself, though a Zerg, I would have thought that the pingpong would be more tense, and hence interesting, to play compared to simply watching it (which I thought was kinda silly). Also interesting how many people are wanting nerfs. I remember back during WoL theres a period where people are calling for Blizzard to stop nerfing stuffs and giving each race equal OP stuffs instead, the argument being multiple OP stuffs in BW made it more 'fun'. Just a thought. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On November 29 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's the same every expansion, people get hyped that the game is "so much better" than the last version of the game. Then we wait a few months and players start to abuse their stuff a lot more, 'imba' strategies and army compositions get figured out and in the end it all comes down to whichever army is more cost effective because that's how the economy works in this game. I think we will have lots and lots of great games regardless though, that's just how korean starcraft works :D It reminds me of how people said that the Life vs Flash HotS exhibition game with the new widow mine usage was to be considered a very good sign of things to come, but a few months later there were already numerous complaints about that style. And by the end of HotS TvZ was apparently worse, although I didn't watch HotS in 2015 so I don't know. And of course every time there is a battlecruiser or carrier in a game it's voted the best match ever. I think standards for short term excitement do not always correlate well to longevity. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... Do you not see the irony in saying he can't think of a single argument to prove you wrong, and then immediately quoting his argument against you, and not having a response to it? I mean, I don't even think his argument was good – the players are always changing in digital games too, so it's a bad analogy – but saying he doesn't have an argument, and then immediately quoting his argument, is pretty thick. My own argument would be more along the lines of "Digital sports aren't like conventional sports! The game changes frequently, and that's really cool! This has always been true of digital sports (even BW was always changing map pools), and it's one of their greatest assets. If you're really so serious as you say about promoting e-sports, why do you not appreciate this fantastic feature of the enterprise?" | ||
|
Zephyp
238 Posts
| ||
|
FireCake
151 Posts
You have to fully commit against them or never attack, else the disruptors will have free trade against you forever. So when both players have disruptors the game will take a very long time because both players try not to attack, ever. I need to switch Protoss :p | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On November 30 2015 03:54 FireCake wrote: Disruptors are in a way similar to old SH : You have to fully commit against them or never attack, else the disruptors will have free trade against you forever. So when both players have disruptors the game will take a very long time because both players try not to attack, ever. I need to switch Protoss :p Please don´t sell your soul to the devil! | ||
|
Haspe
Finland35 Posts
This could open up nice interaction in PvP, I just generally dislike disruptors way of functioning, when you shoot a disruptor projectile, only good way to deal with it is to dodge it. When if you have storm vs. bio interaction in TvP, there is sometimes situations where terran prefers to dive in storm or not to do "killing blow" for instance, but in PvP if you do that vs. disruptor, it might just be biggest throw ever. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 03:09 friendlyscv wrote:The shit UI and retarded unit pathing also made BW a struggle to play, making controlling big armies very difficult and impractical. SC2 doesn't have these tech limitations, so "shiny micro abilities" are one of the ways to make interesting units that take skill to use while simultaneously discouraging deathball play. I'm really tired of reading this kind of crap. It's not so hard to put your units in 4 control groups and go 1A2A3A4A. Then you micro. You don't micro because your units are stupid, you micro because you need to pick targets and movement on the battlefied, depending on your tactics and strategy. SC2 introduces limitations in possibilities of micro BECAUSE of its pathing AI and movement system, it streamlines everything and makes positionning nearly irrelevant. It's not a previous tech limitation (they could have allowed players to select more than 12 units in Starcraft but chose not to), it's an artificial auto-optimization system put in the sequel to make control as easy as possible for noobs at the cost of depth!! | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:14 Haspe wrote: I was thinking with friends, when we watched PartinG vs. ShoWTimE, that what if forcefields would block disruptor shots? So you could have interaction that you "catch" disruptor shot with some very nice forcefields etc. This could open up nice interaction in PvP, I just generally dislike disruptors way of functioning, when you shoot a disruptor projectile, only good way to deal with it is to dodge it. When if you have storm vs. bio interaction in TvP, there is sometimes situations where terran prefers to dive in storm or not to do "killing blow" for instance, but in PvP if you do that vs. disruptor, it might just be biggest throw ever. This is a really great idea! Disruptor vs Disruptor seems really lame as it is now, but with forcefields this might be more interesting. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
The Disruptor is a very good design change for Protoss- such a huge improvement over Colossus (can we change the Colossus' weapon now? Maybe a big single target damage dealer which Protoss currently lacks?). But there is still room for improvement. The "tennis" dynamic is a good starting point, but more development is necessary. Force field blocking is an excellent idea to add a dimension. I also think it would be good to significantly reduce the movement speed of the Disruptor, so Protoss players have to be more deliberate with their positioning with the Disruptor, since it won't be able to keep up with a full speed Stalker group, or run away from enemy Stalkers. This also potentially introduces the need to use a Warp Prism to ferry it around, much like a shuttle-reaver in Brood War. This has a lot of potential including the prism's ability to pick up from a distance. If people start using Warp Prisms in this way this also allows a quick drop, fire, and pick up to avoid taking return fire from Disruptors. Instead of parking the Disruptors within the Stalker blob, it would make sense to maneuver off to the side or behind, making it much more difficult to dodge, and possibly forcing the enemy to blink towards you or in a direction different from directly away from your ball. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
(speculating though) | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 03:09 friendlyscv wrote:That's because balance overhauls weren't possible, so maps had to change to accommodate the various imbalances between the races. Acting like it was some conscious decision by the BW team to never address imbalance is beyond delusional didn't even notice but that's also, what? why not possible? The balance between the races is fine in starcraft it has always been. It's not 50-50-50 but it's good, and most importantly the match ups have great depth, are fun and interesting. (exception is zvz but some like it I think? well if not bad it is just not as good as the others)Yeah BW team stopped addressing balance because it was fine! The game was really good and polished there were no huge hard counter ultra damage crap in the game that kept breaking it like in SC2! Beyond delusional what are you talking about man, you don't know anything about starcraft. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 30 2015 03:28 ChristianS wrote: I mean, I don't even think his argument was good – the players are always changing in digital games too, so it's a bad analogy – but saying he doesn't have an argument, and then immediately quoting his argument, is pretty thick. My own argument would be more along the lines of "Digital sports aren't like conventional sports! The game changes frequently, and that's really cool! This has always been true of digital sports (even BW was always changing map pools), and it's one of their greatest assets. If you're really so serious as you say about promoting e-sports, why do you not appreciate this fantastic feature of the enterprise?" Man, my orginal response contained an argument about him having that argument and some jokes about it silliness, but i went with plain and simple answer just not to escalate this. Anyways, can you name a single top tier esport discipline that changes drastically every 2 years? BW and CS are stale for AGES. I don't follow moba much but afaik both dota and lol have passed the stage of constant adding new heroes long ago. Yes, there are balance patches, but they dont turn the game on its head. Again. Even if so. There ARE (to say the least) examples in esports where, games with, as you call it, stale meta, are not just surviving but beating new records of viewership every single year. Does their success comes from constant rewamp? No. Because this is bullshit. You just continue to claim that esports =/= traditional sports because you want to think that way. But its just your prejudice. And it's silly. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: didn't even notice but that's also, what? why not possible? The balance between the races is fine in starcraft it has always been. It's not 50-50-50 but it's good, and most importantly the match ups have great depth, are fun and interesting. (exception is zvz but some like it I think? well if not bad it is just not as good as the others)Yeah BW team stopped addressing balance because it was fine! The game was really good and polished there were no huge hard counter ultra damage crap in the game that kept breaking it like in SC2! Beyond delusional what are you talking about man, you don't know anything about starcraft. Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)? | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: didn't even notice but that's also, what? why not possible? The balance between the races is fine in starcraft it has always been. It's not 50-50-50 but it's good, and most importantly the match ups have great depth, are fun and interesting. (exception is zvz but some like it I think? well if not bad it is just not as good as the others)Yeah BW team stopped addressing balance because it was fine! The game was really good and polished there were no huge hard counter ultra damage crap in the game that kept breaking it like in SC2! Beyond delusional what are you talking about man, you don't know anything about starcraft. No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself. | ||
|
dae
Canada1600 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:56 insitelol wrote: Man, my orginal response contained an argument about him having that argument and some jokes about it silliness, but i went with plain and simple answer just not to escalate this. Anyways, can you name a single top tier esport discipline that changes drastically every 2 years? BW and CS are stale for AGES. I don't follow moba much but afaik both dota and lol have passed the stage of constant adding new heroes long ago. Yes, there are balance patches, but they dont turn the game on its head. Again. Even if so. There ARE (to say the least) examples in esports where, games with, as you call it, stale meta, are not just surviving but beating new records of viewership every single year. Does their success comes from constant rewamp? No. Because this is bullshit. You just continue to claim that esports =/= traditional sports because you want to think that way. But its just your prejudice. And it's silly. ? League of Legends makes drastic changes that flip the game on it's head basically every season. And that is, viewer wise, the "biggest" e-sport currently. Your arguement doesn't hold much weight. As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now. Disrupters add a large factor of potential turn around to fights, which means that it is possible to come back when quite behind on army with a few good shots - This is a massive improvement, especially in matchups like PvP where if you had less units you just go blinked on and die. Late game mass tempest is kinda eh though. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:56 insitelol wrote: Man, my orginal response contained an argument about him having that argument and some jokes about it silliness, but i went with plain and simple answer just not to escalate this. Anyways, can you name a single top tier esport discipline that changes drastically every 2 years? BW and CS are stale for AGES. I don't follow moba much but afaik both dota and lol have passed the stage of constant adding new heroes long ago. Yes, there are balance patches, but they dont turn the game on its head. Again. Even if so. There ARE (to say the least) examples in esports where, games with, as you call it, stale meta, are not just surviving but beating new records of viewership every single year. Does their success comes from constant rewamp? No. Because this is bullshit. You just continue to claim that esports =/= traditional sports because you want to think that way. But its just your prejudice. And it's silly. Okay, there's two parts to this debate. One is just a matter of opinion – is it an asset or a detriment that esports tend to change so frequently? Ultimately there's no accounting for taste. I like it, and I would have thought most Starcraft fans like it; if you don't, that's too bad. But the other dispute is more factual: do most esports change fairly frequently? For that, the answer is pretty unambiguously yes. Brood War stopped its balance patches fairly early, but map pools changed frequently; anybody who I've ever heard talk about it would insist that Brood War [u]could not[/u[ have remained balanced if the community hadn't continually balanced the game with maps. I challenge you to find an analog in basketball, or baseball, or American football. In soccer (football, w/e) they might change their ball design every once in a while or adjust some minor aspect of the rulebook, but no change so drastic as a map pool change in Brood War ever happens. I don't know much about CS: GO (although I assume they do balance patches and map changes as well), but MOBAs make changes constantly. In fact they make unnecessary changes to freshen up the game so often that they have a term for it: "quality of life" changes. In other words, the game is perfectly balanced and fun, but they change some stuff just to keep everything new and interesting. Even fighting games tend to change to a new iteration every few months, from Street Fighter IV to Street Fighter IV Ultra to Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition to Street Fighter x Tekken to Street Fighter V to Street Fighter V Ultimate Dance Remix... About the only exception I can think of is SSBM, and SSBM is such an anomaly that I don't think you can really consider it representative of a trend. In general competitive digital games change frequently, in fairly significant ways, to keep the playing and viewing experience fresh. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Starcraft II is both good and original. The problem is that the parts of it that are good are not original, and the parts of it that are original are not good. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:31 ChristianS wrote: Okay, there's two parts to this debate. One is just a matter of opinion – is it an asset or a detriment that esports tend to change so frequently? Ultimately there's no accounting for taste. I like it, and I would have thought most Starcraft fans like it; if you don't, that's too bad. But the other dispute is more factual: do most esports change fairly frequently? For that, the answer is pretty unambiguously yes. Brood War stopped its balance patches fairly early, but map pools changed frequently; anybody who I've ever heard talk about it would insist that Brood War [u]could not[/u[ have remained balanced if the community hadn't continually balanced the game with maps. I challenge you to find an analog in basketball, or baseball, or American football. In soccer (football, w/e) they might change their ball design every once in a while or adjust some minor aspect of the rulebook, but no change so drastic as a map pool change in Brood War ever happens. I don't know much about CS: GO (although I assume they do balance patches and map changes as well), but MOBAs make changes constantly. In fact they make unnecessary changes to freshen up the game so often that they have a term for it: "quality of life" changes. In other words, the game is perfectly balanced and fun, but they change some stuff just to keep everything new and interesting. Even fighting games tend to change to a new iteration every few months, from Street Fighter IV to Street Fighter IV Ultra to Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition to Street Fighter x Tekken to Street Fighter V to Street Fighter V Ultimate Dance Remix... About the only exception I can think of is SSBM, and SSBM is such an anomaly that I don't think you can really consider it representative of a trend. In general competitive digital games change frequently, in fairly significant ways, to keep the playing and viewing experience fresh. So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity? and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:58 Big J wrote: Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)? broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators! | ||
|
ZombieFrog
United States87 Posts
So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity? and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times. Valve does patch CSGO, changing weapon stats, and they DO change the map pool and even alter maps within the pool. Even dust 2 got changed so you cannot shoot through the big doors anymore. What in the world are you talking abouit? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote: broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators! Also care to elaborate in which way they keep on breaking the game? Like, giving an example of an actual strategy where those were actually broken beyond being repairable by maps and time? | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:46 ZombieFrog wrote: Valve does patch CSGO, changing weapon stats, and they DO change the map pool and even alter maps within the pool. Even dust 2 got changed so you cannot shoot through the big doors anymore. What in the world are you talking abouit? Can't shoot through big doors anymore?! For real?! U beat me on that one, dude. What a hell of a change. Destroyed the meta completely. The more i post the more i feel i'm just wasting my time here as people don't even TRY to think. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:02 CosmicSpiral wrote: No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself. it's not the game that was imbalanced it's just what happened @pro level in korea, it's not like there was a heavy problem about zerg vs terran in general in the game, proof is in the end all 3 races kept winning things and making good matches with the exception, it is true, that P has always been slightly unfavored vs Z but the matchup is still good and it's all right! I replied a bit hard against friendlyscv because it's not fair to say BW's balance was bad and done through mapmaking, or that the pathing is shit and units are stupid hence micro is born... I'm tired of reading comparisons made with BW to justify flaws of SC2 and then call SC2 "Starcraft" like it's the same thing but people don't even like BW. You know what, I'll give you that, SC2 is not a shit game. But be honest when you look at BW and also when you look at SC2, you know this pathing is unnatural there are a lot of RTS where units have more presence on the map and are able to do things on their own and control space much better in small numbers. Still SC2 has more quality to it than most of these other RTS because sure there are some interesting mechanics and interactions between races. But yes it could be better and it suffered from a marketing mainstream objectives that reduces depth. Do you really disagree with that? I don't like to say things like "you don't know anything about starcraft" to a SC2 player and I appologize to friendlyscv but be honest when you talk about BW. No matter how good you think SC2 is BW is at least as good at SC2 and all the problems that you guys in this community have been talking about for ages with deathballs unkillable armies and all-in aggressions and lack of defender's advantage have very much to do with its pathing/movement system, they are its consequence ! | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:02 CosmicSpiral wrote: No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself. And then after we needed Bisu to save Protoss. That's not balance though: the tools existed and were available, you just needed people to figure out different ways to play. However, maps did play a large part of it, and that can't be ignored. That said, IIRC, BW wasn't extremely balanced. ZvP favored Zerg, ZvT favored Terran, and TvP favored Protoss. There was a sort of asymmetry of balance in the matchups that lead to balanced tournaments, of a sort. Although, the balance was close enough that good players could still win. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:30 dae wrote: As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now. And this turns everything you said into a pile of crap because what people should be caring about is how to fun we get when we play the game not watching it. This is the main issue with LOTV, it was designed with the mindset of a twitch viewer not someone who play the game. Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES! | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote: it's not the game that was imbalanced it's just what happened @pro level in korea That's the kind of claim that can be repeated for almost every game. Either "what can be abused at lower levels of play is irrelevant because the players aren't good" or "what's happening at the top level is not representative of the general population". Either way ZvT was heavily in favor of Terran around 2005-2006, with several maps having 85-90% winrates for Terran. On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote: it's not like there was a heavy problem about zerg vs terran in general in the game, proof is in the end all 3 races kept winning things and making good matches with the exception, it is true, that P has always been slightly unfavored vs Z but the matchup is still good and it's all right! Except for the part when almost no professional zergs could muster a +50% winrate against terrans during that time period. We have the benefit of hindsight to claim that BW wasn't really problematic, it was simply a matter of players finding the appropriate responses. But such a thing is fundamentally an anomaly and there's no guarantee that someone like Savior will ever appear in LotV. Even Mvp's innovations were BW blueprints applied to a new game. On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I replied a bit hard against friendlyscv because it's not fair to say BW's balance was bad and done through mapmaking, or that the pathing is shit and units are stupid hence micro is born... I'm tired of reading comparisons made with BW to justify flaws of SC2 and then call SC2 "Starcraft" like it's the same thing but people don't even like BW. You know what, I'll give you that, SC2 is not a shit game. But be honest when you look at BW and also when you look at SC2, you know this pathing is unnatural there are a lot of RTS where units have more presence on the map and are able to do things on their own and control space much better in small numbers. Still SC2 has more quality to it than most of these other RTS because sure there are some interesting mechanics and interactions between races. But yes it could be better and it suffered from a marketing mainstream objectives that reduces depth. Do you really disagree with that? I don't like to say things like "you don't know anything about starcraft" to a SC2 player and I appologize to friendlyscv but be honest when you talk about BW. No matter how good you think SC2 is BW is at least as good at SC2 and all the problems that you guys in this community have been talking about for ages with deathballs unkillable armies and all-in aggressions and lack of defender's advantage have very much to do with its pathing/movement system, they are its consequence ! When did I ever claim that SC2 couldn't be better? All my posts in this thread are voicing concerns over how LotV could be better. On November 30 2015 05:58 Whitewing wrote: And then after we needed Bisu to save Protoss. That's not balance though: the tools existed and were available, you just needed people to figure out different ways to play. However, maps did play a large part of it, and that can't be ignored. That said, IIRC, BW wasn't extremely balanced. ZvP favored Zerg, ZvT favored Terran, and TvP favored Protoss. There was a sort of asymmetry of balance in the matchups that lead to balanced tournaments, of a sort. Although, the balance was close enough that good players could still win. That's my concern. We can say that BW was fairly balanced because individual players discovered new ways to play matchups in times of crisis, but that's because we have hindsight to thank for that. I'm wary of applying the same rationale to LotV, as if the same phenomena would inevitably happen just because the games are related. The sheer speed of SC2 and the damage output of units makes tactical innovation unlikely, if not impossible, and limits the range of strategic innovation. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:48 Big J wrote: Also care to elaborate in which way they keep on breaking the game? Like, giving an example of an actual strategy where those were actually broken beyond being repairable by maps and time? I guess they are all very "critical mass" units, you build them until you have enough that they will unleash so much damage in the first second of a fight that the weight of the game shifts entirely to these units together in a spot at that point. So it breaks everything that could happen if they weren't so dominant and powerful. They tend to break possibilities of any smaller engagements or tactical spread of forces on the map because of that + mechanics that further add to that like broodlings or concussive shells. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:09 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I guess they are all very "critical mass" units, you build them until you have enough that they will unleash so much damage in the first second of a fight that the weight of the game shifts entirely to these units together in a spot at that point. So it breaks everything that could happen if they weren't so dominant and powerful. They tend to break possibilities of any smaller engagements or tactical spread of forces on the map because of that + mechanics that further add to that like broodlings or concussive shells. None of that has anything to do with imbalance, nor is it an example of an imbalanced strategy. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:03 WrathSCII wrote: And this turns everything you said into a pile of crap because what people should be caring about is how to fun we get when we play the game not watching it. This is the main issue with LOTV, it was designed with the mindset of a twitch viewer not someone who play the game. Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES! That might be Blizzard's design choice, to create an e-sports spectacle for viewers instead of creating a fair contest for players. Gladiators don't enjoy gladiator combat, but it was still fit for the emperor to watch. My personal hope is for Blizzard to update WC3 and BW to have matchmaking inside b.net 2.0 etc. because I think those games are better suited for players since they're slower and give you more time to respond to everything. | ||
|
Gullis
Sweden740 Posts
In zvt /tvz this has never been a problem for me, so I know it can be done in a good way. 2) Variety. The thought of another expansion where I just have to mass bio all game as terran has made me go full on zerg. Because the game is still fresh this is not so much of a problem right now but I fear that once the meta settles everything will revolve around 1 style per match up. If this happens, I, and my guess is many others as well, will lose interest fast. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:32 ledarsi wrote: The Tempest was a terrible idea. Why does Protoss even need another capital ship? Much less the Tempest specifically. Just... what is it for? Starcraft II is both good and original. The problem is that the parts of it that are good are not original, and the parts of it that are original are not good. Its main purpose was to give protoss a good way to deal with broodlords in the absence of vortex. It also made for some interesting PvP games when it was used to counter colossi -- this is probably where we saw them the most. And in a very niche role, it was used in some crazy one-time-use strats as a harass/pressure unit if the map was good for it -- if you could safely "rush" to tempest and the tempests had somewhere they could safely sit and do damage to the enemy base or workers. On November 30 2015 06:03 WrathSCII wrote: Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES! I'm pretty sure this is just due to a (relative) lack of practice or at least judgment should be reserved until they get more practice with it. Pros who have good knowledge of the game and good mechanics can forget how stressful the game can be because they are automatically doing a lot of the right things and they can figure out what they ought to be doing. But playing against disruptors when most of your army is on the ground and concentrated is extremely stressful, at least at first. And they're new to it like everyone else. There are little tricks to take the pressure off and once pros get used to doing those and get a feel for the rhythm of a disruptor game, they'll get more confidence and comfort. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:08 CosmicSpiral wrote: That's the kind of claim that can be repeated for almost every game. Either "what can be abused at lower levels of play is irrelevant because the players aren't good" or "what's happening at the top level is not representative of the general population". Either way ZvT was heavily in favor of Terran around 2005-2006, with several maps having 85-90% winrates for Terran. Except for the part when almost no professional zergs could muster a +50% winrate against terrans during that time period. We have the benefit of hindsight to claim that BW wasn't really problematic, it was simply a matter of players finding the appropriate responses. But such a thing is fundamentally an anomaly and there's no guarantee that someone like Savior will ever appear in LotV. Even Mvp's innovations were BW blueprints applied to a new game. That's interesting I never knew about such an imbalance in ZvT, are you talking about pro winrates though or what? I do think it's important not to focus only on pro-level. At the highest level there are also individual people who are the only ones being so highly trained and they have these really optimized plays they can do and there are not a lot of them, it's like 20 people are far ahead of everyone else. You see in the end BW's balance is still very good, like P<Z by what seriously, not much, and if T<P it's very slight also I want to say as a P user I can tell you that lol. There has always been a trend also to copy or play very closely to the very best player who won the last tournament and it tends to shift the metagame in the same position as the pro-level even if it's not necessarily the right way to play. For example me I've never accepted doing fast expo vs Z as P cause I don't like it as much. So I just don't do it, I do all kinds of 1 gate gas openings instead in main base (and then expo at different times) and I'm fine I get to B- on Iccup like that I know I could get more. In the end the game is still fair to me and I don't really mind small imbalances what I need is for the game to give me choices and be fair and strategic and involve a wide range of skills, that is what's truly important, I believe, that's what makes it fun even! On November 30 2015 06:08 CosmicSpiral wrote: When did I ever claim that SC2 couldn't be better? All my posts in this thread are voicing concerns over how LotV could be better. Sorry when I say "you" it is not directed at you personally in this case it's a general "you" because I'm seeing a lot of posts that give me this impression, not wanting to honestly look or criticize the game, so I'm just writing for anyone who reads this. I am really glad that you are one of those who do so. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:20 NonY wrote: Its main purpose was to give protoss a good way to deal with broodlords in the absence of vortex. It also made for some interesting PvP games when it was used to counter colossi -- this is probably where we saw them the most. And in a very niche role, it was used in some crazy one-time-use strats as a harass/pressure unit if the map was good for it -- if you could safely "rush" to tempest and the tempests had somewhere they could safely sit and do damage to the enemy base or workers. Tempests exact role is to replace carrier, since it failed with that it tried to replace phoenixes vs mutas, after failing against that too, it has the role of a "Reverse Player" that comes to counter anything to propose to be problematic to Protoss. Seriously that units needs to be removed a long with Mother Ship Core. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:08 CosmicSpiral wrote: That's my concern. We can say that BW was fairly balanced because individual players discovered new ways to play matchups in times of crisis, but that's because we have hindsight to thank for that. I'm wary of applying the same rationale to LotV, as if the same phenomena would inevitably happen just because the games are related. The sheer speed of SC2 and the damage output of units makes tactical innovation unlikely, if not impossible, and limits the range of strategic innovation. We are in agreement here. I'm even more concerned about the accelerated economic pacing: due to expansion pacing requirements, you have even less time available for small, subtle but tactically useful plays to develop into an advantage. Small harass becomes negligible: you don't have time to wait for the advantage from such things to grow. Harass becomes relevant only when people are losing significant portions of their economy. Taking a clever position which causes your force to take out an extra 5-6 units when you trade it just doesn't mean anything. Back in WoL, my favorite matchups were TvT and TvZ because of all the back and forth trading and positional play. The marine tank push strategy in TvZ in particular was very fun: terran would build up a small tank and marine force, push to a good location, and try to trade cost effectively to keep zerg from growing too fast. If he was efficient enough, he'd develop a lead. If he wasn't efficient enough, he'd fall behind. Positioning from both players (flanks from zerg, solid siege positions from terran) was the name of the game. There was room for tactical plays with drops, and mutalisks didn't regen super fast so you had to be careful and clever with them. Fast forwards to now, there isn't enough time available for players to do things like this. Units have been modified to fit with faster gameplay, or they aren't used. Mutalisks heal super fast so you don't have to care about minor defenses, so you can keep harassing non-stop. The Liberator does hilarious amounts of damage and is rather mobile by virtue of being an air unit. Everything has become focused on speed and mobility. If it isn't fast, it has to do tremendous damage. If it doesn't do either of those, the unit isn't used: it serves no purpose. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:40 insitelol wrote: So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity? and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times. Traditional sports are different from e-sports in a lot of ways. One of the biggest, though, is that strategy and deception are a much bigger component of the competition. Here's an extreme case: if I'm watching people run track, the game doesn't need to change ever because there's very little strategy in the competition; the challenge is almost entirely in execution. Of course, basketball and football (both American and otherwise) have more strategy and deception than track, but still the main basis of the game is execution. Chess is based on strategy, but not really deception (it's a perfect knowledge game); it gets its longevity purely from having such an infinity of permutations that any game can easily end up in a position nobody has seen before, and players will have to figure out their strategy on the fly. That's simply not true for SC2; the fact is, we frequently wind up in stale metas where things don't really vary all that much. Not to mention, people don't really play chess much anymore, and one of the biggest reasons is because its meta has gotten a bit stale; it's mostly draws. So is it any surprise that most e-sports, particularly those with greater emphasis on strategy, like to make changes periodically to keep things fresh? People clearly like it (present company excepted); if they wanted to stick with HotS or even stick with WoL they could have, but everybody wanted to see shiny new metas with shiny new units. As mentioned, I don't know anything about CS:GO, but even someone else in the thread has suggested Valve actively changes the game. That's in keeping with what I had heard, too; didn't Destiny make a big thread here a while back saying Blizzard should emulate Valve's policy of lots of sponsored tournaments and frequent patches? | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:12 Big J wrote: None of that has anything to do with imbalance, nor is it an example of an imbalanced strategy. That's the answer you get cause I can't give you a specific example of a strategy first because I don't play with fixed strategies I adapt in all my games (best way to play a real strategy game) and second because it's been too long that I played SC2 myself to give such a specific example. But yes it has to do with imbalance, it's not who is the strongest but what possibilities it allows. Balance in a game means this also, that's the first important thing, we often call it design nowadays but it is directly tied, the second important thing is polishing balance so that the initial system doesn't favor one race or style over another. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote: That's the answer you get cause I can't give you a specific example of a strategy first because I don't play with fixed strategies I adapt in all my games (best way to play a real strategy game) and second because it's been too long that I played SC2 myself to give such a specific example. But yes it has to do with imbalance, it's not who is the strongest but what possibilities it allows. Balance in a game means this also, that's the first important thing, we often call it design nowadays but it is directly tied, the second important thing is polishing balance so that the initial system doesn't favor one race or style over another. Just forget it, you just dance around because you have no argument at all. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:35 Big J wrote: Just forget it, you just dance around because you have no argument at all. No no, you can't use one liners if you want to disagree with what I say explain to me why you think I'm wrong. Where are your arguments? I could write and explain to you why colossus is a shitty broken high damage unit but everyone already knows. You just get a critical mass and go attack with your coloball when you are stronger. It breaks everything else you could do if that wasn't the case, the game wouldn't have been previously so centered around how many colo you manage to get as early as possible (like the big tanks or the alien tripods in C&C3 ^^ hello). Everything you do strategically was centered on that goal, as soon as I realized this I stopped playing because on top of that there was not much different tactical use of the colossus then on the map either. A joke, I am P user, I wasn't learning much playing this game or having fun because of that, you know? I expect it to have something that keeps me playing rather than P in BW which is like 10 times deeper? is it just to get the next rank? so I was top of my diamond division 2 months after WoL came out (max) and quit, then 1 year later I go to master within a month and stop playing immediately, game not good enough. With broodlords the free unit ensures you can't engage them and they deal free damage. They are another unit that originally in WoL Z had a strategy to go towards and just mass and the number of broodlords determined by itself a lot of the strength of Z. And there are very few ways to engage them since they block the path with broodlings, so blink-in when you know you're strong enough, binary you know? Something that breaks the game. Disruptors I've already written many times why I think it's broken I think even in this topic. But I don't want to write 1000 words for you just because you try to ridicule me with one liners. PS: one last word about balance. Think of balance as something that exists within a race as well, the balance between the units of a race. Not just races against each other. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:26 WrathSCII wrote: Tempests exact role is to replace carrier, since it failed with that it tried to replace phoenixes vs mutas, after failing against that too, it has the role of a "Reverse Player" that comes to counter anything to propose to be problematic to Protoss. Seriously that units needs to be removed a long with Mother Ship Core. Carriers weren't being used and weren't even intended to be used for competitive play at the time when tempests were introduced to the game. How can you replace nothing? And how does it make sense to say that the tempest replaced the carrier when the tempest was used in ways that the carrier was never used? I'm not sure how replacing a unit is a role anyway. I think of a role in terms of what it accomplishes in real pro games. "Replace carrier" isn't a valid answer to the question, much less an exact answer. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
- Immortal needs some sort of buff. - Ravager needs a slight nerf, perhaps -1 range and they start of slow, and "roach speed" gives speed to both roaches and ravagers - Liberators need a slight nerf, whether it's ROF or something else - Siege tanks still should not be picked up from a medivac, more from a gameplay perspective. All for buffing them damage wise or some other facet after nerfing this. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote: No no, you can't use one liners if you want to disagree with what I say explain to me why you think I'm wrong. Where are your arguments? I could write and explain to you why colossus is a shitty broken high damage unit but everyone already knows. You just get a critical mass and go attack with your coloball when you are stronger. It breaks everything else you could do if that wasn't the case, the game wouldn't have been previously so centered around how many colo you manage to get as early as possible. Everything you do strategically was centered on that goal, as soon as I realized this I stopped playing because on top of that there was not much different tactical use of the colossus then on the map either. A joke, I am P user, I wasn't going to learn much playing this game you know? With broodlords the free unit ensures you can't engage them and they deal free damage. They are another unit that originally in WoL Z had a strategy to go towards and just mass and the number of broodlords determined by itself a lot of the strength of Z. And there are very few ways to engage them since they block the path with broodlings, so blink-in when you know you're strong enough, binary you know? Something that breaks the game. Disruptors I've already written many times why I think it's broken I think even in this topic. But I don't want to write 1000 words for you just because you try to ridicule me with one liners. You were talking about actual imbalance in the game and I was expecting that you meant what everyone else would mean by it. Something that is either statistically or somewhat deterministically broken like BL/Infestor was at that time on that mappool. You basically said it yourself, other people would call what you are saying a design issue. I would also call the fact that in Broodwar Terran only got to use half their units in two of three matchups a design problem. That Protoss was pidgeonholed into FFE into Corsair everygame a design problem. The reliance on splash like reaver, corsairs and templar is pretty similar in BW ZvP as it was/is with Colossi, FFs and so on. But to be honest, I don't wanna actually judge or discuss BW because my knowledge and interest in it are very much ending with what I wrote. Maybe I'm wrong about it, don't really care because I don't really care for that game. I care for SC2 and I very well believe that what you are saying is just biased anti-SC2 crap. I do very much disagree with a lot of design decision in SC2, some of those you mention. But you are arbitrarily marking them as "balance issues" which they are not to uphold an argument that was just wrong in the sense how everybody else around would read it. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
As for me, I've tried enough with SC2, and I think now this expansion is out I've seen what I wanted to see and said what I had to say. I wish I was playing a great game with all you guys on a great battle.net with a good chat interface and everything, but I don't like it and I really dislike and distrust the marketing approach that blizzard has towards even designing/balancing the game and all. Maybe later on a different game. Sorry if you think I'm harsh I'm sure we'd get along great around a beer in a LAN party IRL. Peace. | ||
|
b0lt
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
RHoudini
Belgium3627 Posts
On November 30 2015 03:54 FireCake wrote: Disruptors are in a way similar to old SH : You have to fully commit against them or never attack, else the disruptors will have free trade against you forever. So when both players have disruptors the game will take a very long time because both players try not to attack, ever. I need to switch Protoss :p Hehe. To be honest, you did pretty well with the other race... | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:26 Whitewing wrote: We are in agreement here. I'm even more concerned about the accelerated economic pacing: due to expansion pacing requirements, you have even less time available for small, subtle but tactically useful plays to develop into an advantage. Small harass becomes negligible: you don't have time to wait for the advantage from such things to grow. Harass becomes relevant only when people are losing significant portions of their economy. Taking a clever position which causes your force to take out an extra 5-6 units when you trade it just doesn't mean anything. Part of why I dislike Stalker/Disruptor in PvP is the bizarre sense of fights meaning everything and nothing. People cite Showtime vs Parting as an intense back-and-forth, but there were several points when a player lost 15-25 supply to a single Disruptor shot. And it didn't matter. The opponent could not capitalize on the advantage because the threat of Disruptors made them skittish. And since the economy is so ramped up, losing 10-12 Stalkers meant nothing in terms of losing a strong position or ceding map control. Most games in Dreamhack were determined by big moves: hidden tech switches, failed all-ins, fast maxed out armies. Rarely did I see games where a player won with consistently better positioning or better overall strategy. I mean, did anyone win with a "worse" army but better tactics? I'm not a huge BW fanatic but I can recall many games where a winning player used an inferior army in a superior way. On November 30 2015 06:26 Whitewing wrote: Back in WoL, my favorite matchups were TvT and TvZ because of all the back and forth trading and positional play. The marine tank push strategy in TvZ in particular was very fun: terran would build up a small tank and marine force, push to a good location, and try to trade cost effectively to keep zerg from growing too fast. If he was efficient enough, he'd develop a lead. If he wasn't efficient enough, he'd fall behind. Positioning from both players (flanks from zerg, solid siege positions from terran) was the name of the game. There was room for tactical plays with drops, and mutalisks didn't regen super fast so you had to be careful and clever with them. Fast forwards to now, there isn't enough time available for players to do things like this. Units have been modified to fit with faster gameplay, or they aren't used. Mutalisks heal super fast so you don't have to care about minor defenses, so you can keep harassing non-stop. The Liberator does hilarious amounts of damage and is rather mobile by virtue of being an air unit. Everything has become focused on speed and mobility. If it isn't fast, it has to do tremendous damage. If it doesn't do either of those, the unit isn't used: it serves no purpose. There's also something to be said about unit synergy in those matchups. Marine/tank was unique in the way it could expand its "zone of influence", so to speak. You could secure a primary position with the tanks, protect them with marines (which could quickly advance/retreat with stim), and do extensive damage with drops. MMA abused that all the time back when he was the best TvZ player: he would drop all the time just to distract the zerg so he could shift his main army to better, more threatening positions. Thanks to all the units having roughly the same speed, ling/bane/muta could constantly move around the main terran force and threaten to isolate/backstab/flank. And unless the terran constantly scanned the main army, he would never know how much of the main army was in position to attack him. Right now the popular zerg compositions are extremely awkward and one-dimensional compared to ling/bane/muta or what the old ling/bane/infestor/ultra would've been if ultra pathing was fixed. The acceleration of everything in SC2 really bugs me. For me, the game has become so simplified in terms of interactions that it's kinda poisoned how we talk about the new units. For example all discussion on lurkers seems to hinge on its damage or range, not its place within the game. The assumption is that the lurker's value is based on its effectiveness within a direct fight. The fact that no one considers using lurkers to destroy reinforcement lines, delay the advancement of the opponent's army while teching, or cut off retreat is distressing to me. In BW those purposes were apparent after Savior's rise but it's simply impossible to play like that in LotV. There are too many ways to ignore terrain and too many ways to kill them off before they serve their purpose. | ||
|
SuperHofmann
Italy1741 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9139 Posts
- New economy is nice because games start faster and camping lasts shorter. - While Disruptors are very "all or nothing" units with all it's flaws they're certainly more fun to watch than Colossi. - Pylon overcharge is much better than Nexus cannon. - Zone control from Lurkers creates interesting gameplay. - Viper's anti-air ability gives Zerg a more reliable way of dealing with air deathballs. - I dislike Adept as a unit but it makes Zealot useless and I think Starcraft 2 Zealots are boring - Ghosts were used in TvZ - Instant replays are becoming a standard in esport broadcasts - Reaper bombs are funny | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
 )(English for my sorry ,i'm french) I suppose people complain more about lotv, maybe theyare just bored of Starcraft and intense RTS and need to go playing something else, i suppose for people who are playing a lot (or not at all maybe! ) Hots recently LOTV is not enough to keep them playing.. so here's my point,given ~175 platin/diam games and almost alldreamhack viewed In Hots: i (personnally) considered TvZ and PvT best match up to watch, TvT was interesting, ZvZ and PvP tho were really boring if the game went long (only roaches for one and no skirmishes for the other). And i also found PvZ well, not spectacular most of the time, im P and also found out it was'nt the best to play...well basically i had 40% trying to take a 3rd,then i went Immo/sentry all in and got 60%. While i enjoyed a lot playing PvT, games were dynamic due to drops. So LotV is a sucess for me,ending the collosus domination, (i had to admit i was wrong,effectively this unit has maybe hurt starcraft) with the new economy change this really kill the deathball-play and that's amazing. With drops, PvZ is now really good to watch (playing it is hell for me though xd) for me! Disruptor, while i understand it's hard that u can loose the game in seconds, is a really good unit. Maybe they should make it a even more smaller unit,like less damage and cost 100/100 and so on.. So you get less win on just one ball,but rather on multiple shots. PvT seems totally reverted,which i like, we don't saw a lot of it, and maybe drop adept need a little less attack speed (it's far less early,but god, 8 stimmed Marines with shift a cleans a mineral line in the blink of an eye too!where with adept u have to split 2 shift a), but i think if the terran get to mass Liberator/viking/marauders/ghosts, the toss is in REAL trouble... However TvZ.. well i agree bio mine medi vs muta ling bling WAS THE BEST! And i think it's mostly the liberator that kills this style, rather than ravager, that will get more and more weak as player learn to dodge the spell.. and it's too bad cause i don't see why the Liberator need to be so effective Air Air..I think he should get a one target attack with bonus versus "weak" units,since his ground attack proved to be good enough. PvP and ZvZ are getting better i think, i prefer watching 2 p sending Balls on each other and 2 z sending fireball than just roachs or macro-race for toss..And i think PvP will evovle, just give time to player to train strategy that might be harder to master than the now 2 most used units.. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 30 2015 08:45 Kenny_mk wrote: Lol lots of complainers on this thread..Kinda surprised cause i was amazed by the dreamhack! (if it was bad, i would had a bad week-end )(English for my sorry ,i'm french) I suppose people complain more about lotv, maybe theyare just bored of Starcraft and intense RTS and need to go playing something else, i suppose for people who are playing a lot (or not at all maybe! ) Hots recently LOTV is not enough to keep them playing.. so here's my point,given ~175 platin/diam games and almost alldreamhack viewed In Hots: i (personnally) considered TvZ and PvT best match up to watch, TvT was interesting, ZvZ and PvP tho were really boring if the game went long (only roaches for one and no skirmishes for the other). And i also found PvZ well, not spectacular most of the time, im P and also found out it was'nt the best to play...well basically i had 40% trying to take a 3rd,then i went Immo/sentry all in and got 60%. While i enjoyed a lot playing PvT, games were dynamic due to drops. So LotV is a sucess for me,ending the collosus domination, (i had to admit i was wrong,effectively this unit has maybe hurt starcraft) with the new economy change this really kill the deathball-play and that's amazing. With drops, PvZ is now really good to watch (playing it is hell for me though xd) for me! Disruptor, while i understand it's hard that u can loose the game in seconds, is a really good unit. Maybe they should make it a even more smaller unit,like less damage and cost 100/100 and so on.. So you get less win on just one ball,but rather on multiple shots. PvT seems totally reverted,which i like, we don't saw a lot of it, and maybe drop adept need a little less attack speed (it's far less early,but god, 8 stimmed Marines with shift a cleans a mineral line in the blink of an eye too!where with adept u have to split 2 shift a), but i think if the terran get to mass Liberator/viking/marauders/ghosts, the toss is in REAL trouble... However TvZ.. well i agree bio mine medi vs muta ling bling WAS THE BEST! And i think it's mostly the liberator that kills this style, rather than ravager, that will get more and more weak as player learn to dodge the spell.. and it's too bad cause i don't see why the Liberator need to be so effective Air Air..I think he should get a one target attack with bonus versus "weak" units,since his ground attack proved to be good enough. PvP and ZvZ are getting better i think, i prefer watching 2 p sending Balls on each other and 2 z sending fireball than just roachs or macro-race for toss..And i think PvP will evovle, just give time to player to train strategy that might be harder to master than the now 2 most used units.. great post, thanks for your insight. | ||
|
friendlyscv
12 Posts
On November 30 2015 07:41 CosmicSpiral wrote: Part of why I dislike Stalker/Disruptor in PvP is the bizarre sense of fights meaning everything and nothing. People cite Showtime vs Parting as an intense back-and-forth, but there were several points when a player lost 15-25 supply to a single Disruptor shot. And it didn't matter. The opponent could not capitalize on the advantage because the threat of Disruptors made them skittish. And since the economy is so ramped up, losing 10-12 Stalkers meant nothing in terms of losing a strong position or ceding map control. Losing those stalkers shouldn't automatically lose you the game, should it? I always thought the volatility of SC2 was the community's major problem with it. It should lose you something, sure, but not the game. And I think taking bad fights will eventually matter a lot more once players are comfortable with using the disruptor and microing against it. On November 30 2015 07:41 CosmicSpiral wrote: Most games in Dreamhack were determined by big moves: hidden tech switches, failed all-ins, fast maxed out armies. Rarely did I see games where a player won with consistently better positioning or better overall strategy. I mean, did anyone win with a "worse" army but better tactics? I'm not a huge BW fanatic but I can recall many games where a winning player used an inferior army in a superior way. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 30 2015 07:41 CosmicSpiral wrote: Part of why I dislike Stalker/Disruptor in PvP is the bizarre sense of fights meaning everything and nothing. People cite Showtime vs Parting as an intense back-and-forth, but there were several points when a player lost 15-25 supply to a single Disruptor shot. And it didn't matter. The opponent could not capitalize on the advantage because the threat of Disruptors made them skittish. And since the economy is so ramped up, losing 10-12 Stalkers meant nothing in terms of losing a strong position or ceding map control. Most games in Dreamhack were determined by big moves: hidden tech switches, failed all-ins, fast maxed out armies. Rarely did I see games where a player won with consistently better positioning or better overall strategy. I mean, did anyone win with a "worse" army but better tactics? I'm not a huge BW fanatic but I can recall many games where a winning player used an inferior army in a superior way. There's also something to be said about unit synergy in those matchups. Marine/tank was unique in the way it could expand its "zone of influence", so to speak. You could secure a primary position with the tanks, protect them with marines (which could quickly advance/retreat with stim), and do extensive damage with drops. MMA abused that all the time back when he was the best TvZ player: he would drop all the time just to distract the zerg so he could shift his main army to better, more threatening positions. Thanks to all the units having roughly the same speed, ling/bane/muta could constantly move around the main terran force and threaten to isolate/backstab/flank. And unless the terran constantly scanned the main army, he would never know how much of the main army was in position to attack him. Right now the popular zerg compositions are extremely awkward and one-dimensional compared to ling/bane/muta or what the old ling/bane/infestor/ultra would've been if ultra pathing was fixed. The acceleration of everything in SC2 really bugs me. For me, the game has become so simplified in terms of interactions that it's kinda poisoned how we talk about the new units. For example all discussion on lurkers seems to hinge on its damage or range, not its place within the game. The assumption is that the lurker's value is based on its effectiveness within a direct fight. The fact that no one considers using lurkers to destroy reinforcement lines, delay the advancement of the opponent's army while teching, or cut off retreat is distressing to me. In BW those purposes were apparent after Savior's rise but it's simply impossible to play like that in LotV. There are too many ways to ignore terrain and too many ways to kill them off before they serve their purpose. Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. I was really hoping that LOTV would slow down economic development pacing to allow an extension of the early and mid game, not speed it up dramatically. On November 30 2015 09:08 friendlyscv wrote: Losing those stalkers shouldn't automatically lose you the game, should it? I always thought the volatility of SC2 was the community's major problem with it. It should lose you something, sure, but not the game. And I think taking bad fights will eventually matter a lot more once players are comfortable with using the disruptor and microing against it. https://youtu.be/3qzSlRmTCDY?t=40m35s Couple things: He's not suggesting that losing the stalkers to a hit should lose you the game outright, but it should probably cost you position or momentum or something. It didn't do any of that at all. You'd have to deal 50-60 supply of damage before any sort of position is sacrificed, and that's not good for healthy gameplay. It all becomes about power moves, nothing subtle matters. If I drop a few zerglings in a terran base and kill a supply depot, then get the lings out, odds are pretty good that it's not going to make a measurable difference on the game at all. Small chipping damage should mean something, but for it to start adding up you need to extend the game. Harassment has become about wiping out entire mineral lines, not about getting a few kills here and there. As for that game, I'd argue that TY's army wasn't actually inferior at all. His army was so much more mobile that all he had to do was poke around constantly and eventually he'd starve Parting out. Liberators in particular are outrageously powerful. In a straight up fight his army was weaker, but it was hardly an inferior force, because it was designed entirely to thoroughly punish the main weakness of protoss: immobility. In fact, in terms of ability to win games, that army is much more powerful. And if Parting had to attack directly into TY sieged up and ready for it, Parting would have lost due to how strong liberators were. Parting's only shot was to flank the liberators and pick them off without the rest of TY's army there. Liberators are so bloody powerful that you can't fight under them at all. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 30 2015 09:39 Whitewing wrote: Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. I was really hoping that LOTV would slow down economic development pacing to allow an extension of the early and mid game, not speed it up dramatically. Couple things: He's not suggesting that losing the stalkers to a hit should lose you the game outright, but it should probably cost you position or momentum or something. It didn't do any of that at all. You'd have to deal 50-60 supply of damage before any sort of position is sacrificed, and that's not good for healthy gameplay. It all becomes about power moves, nothing subtle matters. As for that game, I'd argue that TY's army wasn't actually inferior at all. His army was so much more mobile that all he had to do was poke around constantly and eventually he'd starve Parting out. Liberators in particular are outrageously powerful. In a straight up fight his army was weaker, but it was hardly an inferior force, because it was designed entirely to thoroughly punish the main weakness of protoss: immobility. In fact, in terms of ability to win games, that army is much more powerful. And if Parting had to attack directly into TY sieged up and ready for it, Parting would have lost due to how strong liberators were. Parting's only shot was to flank the liberators and pick them off without the rest of TY's army there. Liberators are so bloody powerful that you can't fight under them at all. I wonder how long it takes to max out in relation to HotS Blizzard-seconds. Considering the 3 minutes cut out of the beginning of the game, I figure that it would take much longer to max out now since players are committing more units to attacking. Were there any examples of fast maxes during DH? (A VOD would be great.) | ||
|
ETisME
12329 Posts
As of now I think roach ravager is really too powerful in straight up fight, limiting the options for terran and protoss in early game. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 09:48 ETisME wrote: To add to my comments from a few pages ago, I really think a small nerf to roach hp can do wonders. As of now I think roach ravager is really too powerful in straight up fight, limiting the options for terran and protoss Well, I would like to see it nerfed (~10HP) and burrow micro ability increased through lower burrow delay and a tiny instant heal (~5HP) when you burrow instead of the increased increased regneration through tunneling claws. I dunno, haven't seen all TvZs but I remember one fight where Bomber (admittetly probably a favorite against most Zergs he played) pretty much steamrolled the roach/ravager/hydra army with a mainly marine army. I think the eventual strenght of the composition is fine. It looks like it matches up with bio-compositions if both of them are well-microed around the corrosive biles once the Terran has a good amount of (re-)production capability. The timing - as with all roach timings - might be too strong or too restricting though in LotV and cause Zerg to get leads where they shouldn't. Dunno, that's always such a hard call to make when the success of one side is often rooted in just playing much more sledgehammer than the other. | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
For the PvP at least, i remember Parting or showtime losing like 20-25 supply to a disruptor shots(it was rare!that much loss only on one side happenned only once i think), and not engaging afterwards. Well all french casters on the moment were SHOCKED he did'nt engaged afterwards, they understood the stress of losing the fireball war was strong, but most said he still should, and while some casters may not be the best players (while amazing casters!) those one were really solid players, i think he should done that too,it's just he was'nt seeing the game and prefered to make it last. BUT he instantly lose position, so please don't say you need to lose 50 60 supply to lose position cause that's just wrong,losing 50 60 supply is so much, before lotv that's just was THE final fight who was the game.. And i think faster economy is really good and get this game near your (well not maybe you) holy BW,we are'nt losing the early phase for me at all. Everything is a bit faster but i personnally handle it and im not a good player (i mean come on guys im a toss) it might be hard for low gold and lower cause that's means their game might be dicted by luck (will they notice this liberator/adept soon enough? will they lose to disruptor?) but hey, top gold is something everyone can achieve if they like the game and play enough, and for the other well.. Starcraft 2 will never get a super popularity, so at least it have to be fun to watch, so it still lives, does'nt matter for me if the game is a bit more hardcore (and it shou'ld'nt be since there is less game with barely more than 2 fight, where a newb player can, for example , move command in the fight and just lose a 10 min macro game cause of this!) And this relate to the question about maxed pop, we barely saw them,meaning players were trading, meaning good games. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 30 2015 10:25 Kenny_mk wrote: To answer the last answer from page 10 (actually lazy sorry) you people are for me simply not telling the truth and not knowing what you want For the PvP at least, i remember Parting or showtime losing like 20-25 supply to a disruptor shots(it was rare!that much loss only on one side happenned only once i think), and not engaging afterwards. Well all french casters on the moment were SHOCKED he did'nt engaged afterwards, they understood the stress of losing the fireball war was strong, but most said he still should, and while some casters may not be the best players (while amazing casters!) those one were really solid players, i think he should done that too,it's just he was'nt seeing the game and prefered to make it last. BUT he instantly lose position, so please don't say you need to lose 50 60 supply to lose position cause that's just wrong,losing 50 60 supply is so much, before lotv that's just was THE final fight who was the game.. And i think faster economy is really good and get this game near your (well not maybe you) holy BW,we are'nt losing the early phase for me at all. Everything is a bit faster but i personnally handle it and im not a good player (i mean come on guys im a toss) it might be hard for low gold and lower cause that's means their game might be dicted by luck (will they notice this liberator/adept soon enough? will they lose to disruptor?) but hey, top gold is something everyone can achieve if they like the game and play enough, and for the other well.. Starcraft 2 will never get a super popularity, so at least it have to be fun to watch, so it still lives, does'nt matter for me if the game is a bit more hardcore (and it shou'ld'nt be since there is less game with barely more than 2 fight, where a newb player can, for example , move command in the fight and just lose a 10 min macro game cause of this!) And this relate to the question about maxed pop, we barely saw them,meaning players were trading, meaning good games. He didn't lose map position at all, he just didn't engage. Big difference. Trading does not equate to good games. Fun to watch maybe, but I frankly find it rather dull unless there's a good deal of thought behind the trading. We're not complaining that the game is unplayable, merely that decision making has been heavily dumbed down due to pacing. The design moved in the wrong direction. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
Lurkers, Ravagers, Liberators, Disruptors. Parting's comeback against Solar in game 4 of the finals never would have happened in heart of the swarm, and it was a well controlled slow push across the map too which was pretty awesome to watch. Legacy of the Void is the first iteration of SC2 that feels like a true sequel to Brood War. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Can we get siege tanks back now Blizzard? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
The unit makes really big plays possible. It's not like throwing a maxed army against a maxed army, and then 60 bane destroy bio because someone couldn't split in time, that's not something I enjoy watching, and the game completely ends right there. It's hard to land 3 disruptor shots at one (which could be game ending), but many times it's just one disruptor shot going off at a time. It's like trading big blows in boxing, a dynamic that creates some big moments and a great back and forth. I wish every race had a unit that could make big explosive blows like that, big blows that aren't always knockouts, and sometimes they are. | ||
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
But I still will wait 2 more months. HotS looked awesome at first, with so many posibilities, so many new things, and then it fall in a hole with really boring games and the same thing over and over. What make Disruptor look good right now (because it is not being abused with Collossi behind for now), is that it requires micro from both sides instead only one (contrasting with Widow Mines for example). Let's hope the game get better and better in the opposite direction to HotS | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Lurkers and Siege Tanks should have a similar effect, but behave very differently. Lurkers are invisible, and Siege Tanks are immobile but with longer range. | ||
|
therabit
795 Posts
| ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
- TvT went from best Mirror matchup to worst imo. Doom Drops with siege tanks + bio killed all the good positional fighting from previous games. Matchup seems kinda to fast to die now. Early Reapers seemed also a bit to strong (Bomber vs TY) - PvP its the other way around, stalker + disruptor makes very weird and worn out games. Its good that its not to fast to die like in previous games, but it looked kinda boring. and even after a good disruptor shot its hard to kill the enemy. - TvP i still feel like adepts are a bit to strong, also disruptors. On terran side i feel like the liberator also needs some tweaks, in high number 6+ it looked to strong. - ZvP lurker timing push seemed super strong, i dont think there is a proper counter to that timing on protoss side. Adepts also a bit to strong here imo - ZvT cant say much about havent seen many games played out... | ||
|
b_unnies
3579 Posts
I prefer deathballs, I don't like how the economy makes it harder to max, and colossus is my favorite unit. I find turtling till 200/200 to be a lot better than short micro games, and that's why I like P the most in sc2 and I loved TvP in BW. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
| ||
|
MiCroLiFe
Norway264 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:42 MockHamill wrote: I am really impressed by the Zerg players especially in TvZ. That match up is so hard but somehow they still managed to win against all odds! Terran seem too strong though. I really hope Blizzard think long and hard before improving the bunker upgrade. Maybe they could tone down Liberators and improve Ravagers somehow? Terran seems to strong? whit 28% winrate vs zerg in DH? 2 best eu terrans had no chance. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On November 30 2015 18:21 MiCroLiFe wrote: Terran seems to strong? whit 28% winrate vs zerg in DH? 2 best eu terrans had no chance. It is way way way too early to start pumping statistics. At the start of BW, Terran did not make it out of Ro16 in OSL until Boxer came and started making out build. Stop complaining about Balance the first month the game is out. | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
On November 30 2015 12:44 Whitewing wrote: He didn't lose map position at all, he just didn't engage. Big difference. Trading does not equate to good games. Fun to watch maybe, but I frankly find it rather dull unless there's a good deal of thought behind the trading. We're not complaining that the game is unplayable, merely that decision making has been heavily dumbed down due to pacing. The design moved in the wrong direction. I don't feel like decision making has been dumbed down... In PvP before there was'nt almost no decision either than when i engage this big fight maybe now so i can take 2 more hit with colossi on the zealot And for me it's the other player that did'nt engage,not the other way around,it was up to him since he just did damage,we might not talk about the same game lol cause the player who lost supply lost position, and if this (your version)happenned then there is no wonder why parting won,cause even at my level a loss of 20 25 supply means im gonna engage! (in PvP or a almost equal situation at least) And Deacon_frost, aside PvZ which is hell for me too (i hope there will be some patch or some strong bo,i think players like us should rely more on, stargate with things like stasis ward) i don't understand what you says.. Having something to drop which effectively hurt the terran is like reeeaaally good after all those game loses to drops (since it is much harder to defend them)and in PvP (maybe my best match-up atm) i personally still doing really good with Stargate phoenix into Robo since new overcharge allow us to defend stalkers rushes more easily...Unless you are GM i think you don't have to play stalkers-Disruptors like the pro, and like i said, i hope this style will change as the meta evolve in the pro-scene.. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On November 30 2015 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote: - Lurker needs -1 range, but +5 to light. Maybe also make them burrow slightly slower. - Immortal needs some sort of buff. - Ravager needs a slight nerf, perhaps -1 range and they start of slow, and "roach speed" gives speed to both roaches and ravagers - Liberators need a slight nerf, whether it's ROF or something else - Siege tanks still should not be picked up from a medivac, more from a gameplay perspective. All for buffing them damage wise or some other facet after nerfing this. Agreed on pretty much everything. Specially on the lurker damage, I would love to see the base damage reduced a bit and given some bonus damage against either light or bio. That way it counters masses of lings/marines/zealots even better but doesn't do as well against stalkers/roaches/mech. Ravager needs to be armored asap, (get +1 armor maybe?) and then some nerf like you said. Since most people agree it comes too early in the game for such a powerful unit, I would suggest adding an upgrade on the roach warren that allows roaches to morph into them. Either that or a "Ravager Den" building that unlocks as soon as you have a Roach Warren. Not sure about the Immortal, I think it's fine atm as long as ravager gets the armored tag. After watching DH, I'm positive the best new units are the protoss and the worst are the terran. Both design and fun wise. Disruptor shots are exciting :D | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 30 2015 18:34 Kenny_mk wrote: I don't feel like decision making has been dumbed down... In PvP before there was'nt almost no decision either than when i engage this big fight maybe now so i can take 2 more hit with colossi on the zealot And for me it's the other player that did'nt engage,not the other way around,it was up to him since he just did damage,we might not talk about the same game lol cause the player who lost supply lost position, and if this (your version)happenned then there is no wonder why parting won,cause even at my level a loss of 20 25 supply means im gonna engage! (in PvP or a almost equal situation at least) And Deacon_frost, aside PvZ which is hell for me too (i hope there will be some patch or some strong bo,i think players like us should rely more on, stargate with things like stasis ward) i don't understand what you says.. Having something to drop which effectively hurt the terran is like reeeaaally good after all those game loses to drops (since it is much harder to defend them)and in PvP (maybe my best match-up atm) i personally still doing really good with Stargate phoenix into Robo since new overcharge allow us to defend stalkers rushes more easily...Unless you are GM i think you don't have to play stalkers-Disruptors like the pro, and like i said, i hope this style will change as the meta evolve in the pro-scene.. 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?) | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:40 neptunusfisk wrote: so changing the rules in starcraft is equivalent to changing a player in football what is changing a player in starcraft equivalent to then? and what are the meta changes in football and chess equivalent to? i think we can both arrive at the conclusion that your statement is even more absurd than the one you claim to be absurd changing a player in starcraft is equivalent to changing the coach in football, that should be really obvious from my analogy if you think about it for 2 seconds | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
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.. | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:12 Kenny_mk wrote: 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... | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:12 Kenny_mk wrote: 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. | ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
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 !! | ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
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. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 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) | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 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 !! 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) | ||
|
Elentos
55465 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 !! 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). | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote: 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 | ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:50 deacon.frost wrote: 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? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:45 Elentos wrote: 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... | ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:58 Big J wrote: 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. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 21:06 Elentos wrote: 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. | ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
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 ... | ||
|
PepperMintTea
187 Posts
| ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
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. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
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. | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
| ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
thx for the comments, i don't have a direct line to the design team but i could forward it to someone! IMO energy would be better, it's very easy to tweak its power as well since you have far more variables than just the flat cooldown. You can make it stronger early game by having it spawn with full mana - 2 disruptor shots - ... you can change strength over time by tweaking its energy regeneration rate, you can make shots cost more or less, bla bla ...![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MQm4Y1Q.png) ^ kinda horrible chart but it shows the basic idea, let's say you need the green bar to reach 30 on the Y axis (say 100 energy) to fire a shot, 60 on the Y axis would be the max shot (say 200 energy).. you can tweak all the variables very easily and it's far more versatile and interesting than the passive disruptor or the angry one that we saw a lot of during the PvP's at dreamhack ~ I know that energy units also can promote turtling (BL/infestor) and one has to be very careful designing them but being able to send in a warp prism with templars ready to feedback and having counter-blinks to snipe the prism, etc ... all sounds way better to me than just stalker disruptor (tempest) vs stalker disruptor (tempest) If turning Disruptors into EMP-able energy units should render Protoss 100% incapable of winning vs Ghost/bio/liberator then Protoss should get some love to its other units ~ On November 30 2015 21:47 KOtical wrote: 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... I thought of this too, you can put them down in between bases and create a 'trap field', but with detection the stasis traps are easily triggered by a single blink stalker or killed. They're quite expensive energy wise and expose the oracle, they also take 4 seconds to deploy so they can't really be used in a real battle. Compared to the strength of the stalker/disruptor death-ball, they're just not very strong :/ | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
| ||
|
Killmouse
Austria5700 Posts
And with this it would only change the pvp mu | ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
On November 30 2015 21:56 Umpteen wrote: I'm having strokey-beard thoughts about Blink using energy, now... "He is out of blinks !! This push looked unstoppable for the first minute Tasteless, but after blinking in and out of the main two times, these stalkers are OH SO LOW on energy!! MVP is hanging on by the skin of his teeth!!! Another blink is almost ready, where will MC send his stalkers?" LOLOLOL~ | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
On November 30 2015 21:58 Killmouse wrote: I dont play protoss but can forcefield block disruptor shots ? If not wouldn't it nice being able to ff disruptor shot ? I think it will enable a lot of nice micro moments And with this it would only change the pvp mu i dont know if they can, but its not worth it gas price to high and when it comes down to that situation running out of energy and then are to slow to dodge the disruptor shots, its simple worthless... especially vs blink stalkers wich simple blinks over ff´s... what i found interessting though as far as i could see the disruptor shots could block each other. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2015 21:58 Killmouse wrote: I dont play protoss but can forcefield block disruptor shots ? If not wouldn't it nice being able to ff disruptor shot ? I think it will enable a lot of nice micro moments And with this it would only change the pvp mu would you really start using sentries just to block disruptor shots? Sentries run out of energy, are weak combatants, eat up your gas and can't dodge disruptor shots when they get around the forcefields, in particular, whenever you leave a choke. I don't see this being useful, though it would be hilarious to see disruptor balls being forcefielded in a way to deal friendly fire | ||
|
Killmouse
Austria5700 Posts
On November 30 2015 22:07 Big J wrote: would you really start using sentries just to block disruptor shots? Sentries run out of energy, are weak combatants, eat up your gas and can't dodge disruptor shots when they get around the forcefields, in particular, whenever you leave a choke. I don't see this being useful, though it would be hilarious to see disruptor balls being forcefielded in a way to deal friendly fire Well was just an idea , I know nothing about protoss haha | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
 | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 30 2015 21:51 Liquid`Snute wrote: + Show Spoiler + thx for the comments, i don't have a direct line to the design team but i could forward it to someone! IMO energy would be better, it's very easy to tweak its power as well since you have far more variables than just the flat cooldown. You can make it stronger early game by having it spawn with full mana - 2 disruptor shots - ... you can change strength over time by tweaking its energy regeneration rate, you can make shots cost more or less, bla bla ...^ kinda horrible chart but it shows the basic idea, let's say you need the green bar to reach 30 on the Y axis (say 100 energy) to fire a shot, 60 on the Y axis would be the max shot (say 200 energy).. you can tweak all the variables very easily and it's far more versatile and interesting than the passive disruptor or the angry one that we saw a lot of during the PvP's at dreamhack ~ I know that energy units also can promote turtling (BL/infestor) and one has to be very careful designing them but being able to send in a warp prism with templars ready to feedback and having counter-blinks to snipe the prism, etc ... all sounds way better to me than just stalker disruptor (tempest) vs stalker disruptor (tempest) If turning Disruptors into EMP-able energy units should render Protoss 100% incapable of winning vs Ghost/bio/liberator then Protoss should get some love to its other units ~ I thought of this too, you can put them down in between bases and create a 'trap field', but with detection the stasis traps are easily triggered by a single blink stalker or killed. They're quite expensive energy wise and expose the oracle, they also take 4 seconds to deploy so they can't really be used in a real battle. Compared to the strength of the stalker/disruptor death-ball, they're just not very strong :/ There is no time to use stasis traps. There's hardly a time to warp in units because when you are warping in you have to look at the place for a while. Take revealed that Parting had 455 APM on average(converted to normal time from Blizzard values) vs Showtime(?? I hope it was this match). There's no place and there's high risk when you control the oracle taht you will lose to a random doom ball. Maybe later after players get used to it, but i don't think so, the risk is too big. | ||
|
ETisME
12329 Posts
On November 30 2015 22:17 KOtical wrote: simple solution, replace disruptor with reaver I wonder how many of the people here actually think it will be a good idea? I can't see it working when the game is so fast paced | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
200 energy max 100 energy per shot 100 starting energy 3.3333 energy/second (100 energy in 30seconds) No cooldown. So I thought about tweaking those a bit: 200 energy max 125 energy per shot 125 starting energy 4.1666 energy/second (125 energy in 30seconds, 50energy in 12seconds) reasoning? The shots over time curve out a little. --> No double shots possible, second shot from a full energy disruptor comes 12seconds after the first one (9seconds buffed in comparison to now, very nice against lurkers for example) --> Consecutive shots come every 30seconds Not sure if that solves it though. I played around with different energy numbers too but I'm not certain one can make it more interesting with the artificial 25steps of energy (already throwing out the energy regeneration and max energy standardizations!), either I get double shots or you I severely nerfed disruptors in many situations. Maybe a combo of cooldowns and energy numbers could make it curve out more interestingly. | ||
|
Aikin
Austria532 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On November 30 2015 23:14 Aikin wrote: If you put energy on disruptors they would probably get countered too hard by ghosts and templars. Tough its questionable if anyone would go templars in PVP. But making the unit useless by getting emped sounds too harsh. Could give them a total energy pool of 250 and make each shot cost 150, with super high energy regen rate. That way one EMP would not wreck those with full energy or close to full energy (it removes 100 energy afaik). It's not elegant but it gets the job done I guess. With that said, while I think disruptors with energy is interesting (makes Feedback relevant in PvP) I'm not convinced yet. Edit: Ofc then the templar would own the disruptor, duh. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
|
PepperMintTea
187 Posts
On December 01 2015 00:29 NonY wrote: I wouldn't put much effort into redesigning disruptors based on the DH game, unless it's just for fun. We're far from the end of the development of playing with disruptors and playing against disruptors. Whatever you design now based on, for example, the Parting vs Showtime series, is going to be outdated by the time it's implemented. I'm sure that if no changes were made and people had to practice this version of the game for five years, we'd look back at this series and laugh. How quickly will gameplay change naturally to a state where the dissatisfied have become satisfied? Some people were dissatisfied while watching that series. Are there enough of those people to make a change? I agree with the concept of holding back changes, I think this has been stated by many people many times. However if a change is proposed that , in the inventors opinion, would improve the gameplay overall is it not right to consider it seriously. Like I understand where you are coming from on a general level but you haven't really said if you think the switch to energy rather than Cooldown would be an improvement or why it would be bad. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On November 30 2015 22:33 deacon.frost wrote: There is no time to use stasis traps. There's hardly a time to warp in units because when you are warping in you have to look at the place for a while. Take revealed that Parting had 455 APM on average(converted to normal time from Blizzard values) vs Showtime(?? I hope it was this match). There's no place and there's high risk when you control the oracle taht you will lose to a random doom ball. Whenever your army is moving away from your opponents army, it is safe. So you can always retreat from standing just outside disruptor range, and while your army is on the move you can give 100% attention to something else without worry of your whole army dying. You don't necessarily have to go back to your base either, but rather move laterally to pressure a different enemy base. You can also keep your distance and have an observer or some other spotter unit in between the armies. Or you can use revelation on the enemy disruptors. There are definitely pockets of time that can be created. Both players have to agree to keep their armies near each other unless one player is already at their own base, but then that means the opponent's army is so far away from their own bases that they're more vulnerable to harass and split armies. The disruptor is so potent at wiping out ground forces and protoss will almost always have a mainly ground force coming out of the mid game that it has made players obsessed with avoiding shots on their main army. However, I think that a player who comes in with a plan of how to split armies and multitask and comes in with a lot of practice of doing it will win more than 50% of the time against a player who tends to keep most of his army together and mainly looks for good disruptor shots on the enemy army and does little bits of harass with small groups of units. I think there are also composition changes to be made, both for attacking a disruptor player early when he only has one or two disruptors and for the late game. I think there are timing attacks that will be designed to kill disruptor builds early on and I think there's more to late game composition than stalker-disruptor and eventually tempests. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
 ) I would like to ask them a question:How much do you like balance patches during WCS? I don't think Blizzard would patch the game during a single weekend, so DH, IEM and HSC are fine, but how about the last time TB was furious about SH nerf a day before his player was supposed to play Why am I asking? Because NonY wrote "lets wait", but if we wait long enough the full show of SC2 leagues and tournaments starts. Proleague and GSL have usually early start and I honestly think that balance patches released a day or two before some group is played are bad, but I am low a level player. Tell me how big of a deal it really is, thanks. Edit> I know taht TB was furious about promised maps with old balance that were not delivered and not about Blizzard balancing the game | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 01 2015 00:28 Salteador Neo wrote: Could give them a total energy pool of 250 and make each shot cost 150, with super high energy regen rate. That way one EMP would not wreck those with full energy or close to full energy (it removes 100 energy afaik). It's not elegant but it gets the job done I guess. With that said, while I think disruptors with energy is interesting (makes Feedback relevant in PvP) I'm not convinced yet. Edit: Ofc then the templar would own the disruptor, duh. Yeah, I thought about various design concepts for that (it is mainly for fun @Nony and I'm not convinced myself that this is a good solution, or that a solution is needed. I'm one of those guys who enjoys those disruptor wars... but then again I'm also one of those guys who would tune in for the Swarm Host games and that in general would enjoy the game more if it was slower) There are advantages and disadvantages to many of them: Higher energy or regeneration makes it more robust against EMPs Higher energy also makes it more vulnerable to feedback Snute's 200energy, 100cost solution makes it so that a fully loaded disruptor could take an EMP and still have a shot. Lower max energy makes the energy regeneration more natural and the unit more robust against feedback. Alternatively I thought it would be interesting if the Disruptor used his shields instead of his energy and had high shield regeneration instead, or a second ability that granted high shield regeneration for some drawback like becoming stationary for a few seconds. After all without a second spell there is no energy tension anyways, so it's not that interesting to put energy on the unit and only makes it vulnerable to feedback. (like WoL/HotS battlecruisers, WoL Thors) | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On December 01 2015 00:36 PepperMintTea wrote: I agree with the concept of holding back changes, I think this has been stated by many people many times. However if a change is proposed that , in the inventors opinion, would improve the gameplay overall is it not right to consider it seriously. Like I understand where you are coming from on a general level but you haven't really said if you think the switch to energy rather than Cooldown would be an improvement or why it would be bad. Just based on the policy that fewer changes are better. The game is hard to play and things take a lot of time for even the best players to learn. Players are really starting to sink their teeth into how disruptor games are played and probably during the first season of WCS 2016 we'll see a lot more stuff. It just feels wrong to erase that effort and knowledge when it hasn't gone stale yet. Sort of the essence of SC is to have these kinds of problems and to work through them in-game rather than changing the rules of the game. And there's no way to really know if a proposed change really would be a perfect improvement and not just different. It'd take a really extreme case to change something that hasn't stopped naturally changing in-game. | ||
|
random hero
Germany31 Posts
Anyway we still have to wait and see how it develops, maybe there is a different way to go? Maybe it's possible to split a bigger part of the main army off, to harass/destroy the opponent base, while having enough disruptors in the main army to hold back the opponents main army? And what about carriers? ;-) Edit: btw great casting Snute! | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
On November 30 2015 20:29 KOtical wrote: 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... It's hard staying polite with people like you.Long live to toss hater i guess,even if you may be right on this point you guys are just ruining SC2 experience sometimes. Don't worry this is the least of my problem in LotV,mb lost 2 games on that, was just 2cts more for a casual approach OF COURSE You can imagine this photon could cost more energy.Anyways i don't really care about this, was up to hear other comments would just be nice if it was not in the form of Protoss whining, for the god who know reason people hate this race and think it's OP no matter what (let's see PvZ without this! lolololol) Something is strange because ppl don't like all or nothing of the disruptor,but for me the new overcharge is far less all or nothing than the previous one, on every aspect (You can cast it faster most of time in case Mcore is in danger of getting sniped, you have more choice on where the area is, and the list goes on, be it too strong or not) If you guys want to get back to WoL where T just had to get MM and go in the Toss&win like a tard before the 2nd base is up (, if the toss is'nt 2 league ) just says it. And for disruptor i don't like the idea of it shooting less.. Aside from the balance perspective, i think for the part of the game where the P only have 1-2 Disruptor, it make the game even more all or nothing,since those shoots will be even more crucial. It would maybe make P more "economic" on those shots, and thus more defensive,but the result might be disruptor and stalker just staying in back since shooting is more risky,which is even more boring than protoss sending balls to each other. Energy though might be a way to give templar a role in the match-up, though the fact that feedback almost killing the disruptor feels a bit easy to me.(it's easy to click and the disruptor can't really fight back like in a ghost/templar fight,+ the fireball being desamorced once it's dead..) Also i don't know what to think about the ghost countering both templar and Disruptor. While it might not be that much a counter if energy regen fast.. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On December 01 2015 01:38 random hero wrote: While I enjoyed watching the insane Showtime Parting PvP volleyball match, it did give me the feeling that in this situation, there is no way for one player to win, unless the other one makes a big mistake, or via an endlessly slow tempest attrition grind. i dont really follow. they were both playing really well and they both took a LOT of significant disruptor hits that put each player quite far ahead in army at certain points. a player worse than showtime (random ladder GM for example) would have simply died to parting's superior micro long before 25 minutes. instead showtime kept up in a pretty tight back-and-forth, but parting gradually won by making more little plays here and there and just being better overall. i didn't see anything "endlessly slow" about the tempest transition, as they were both still pushing forward and showing aggression as best they could while they added tempests. it's not like the game was deadlocked and no one was moving their army until showtime took one huge hit and parting amoved over him, it was very very back and forth. i think the focus should be on finding a ground-based counterplay to disruptors other than blink that makes disruptors still powerful and attractive yet also possible to beat in a straight-up fight without simply having a mix of better disruptor shots and a high disruptor count. whether that's through nerfs and redesigns like snute is suggesting or through patience and meta development like nony said remains to be seen. but i don't think it's a Problem Matchup, and i think people are overthinking the "this isn't starcraft/people will get bored of this" angle just because they're shocked by something so new coming out of the matchup. it's easy to say the matchup is "just protoss throwing balls at each other." it's also easy to say that hots pvp was just protoss shooting lasers or that tvz was just marines splitting against banelings, you can do it with any matchup. at the moment top protoss have identified that disruptor micro is probably going to be a really important mechanical skill to hone in pursuit of staying competitive, so it makes sense that early games would appear to be heavily focused on mass blink disruptor wars. but once it's tied into the players' muscle memory and they're not learning the game as they go, build orders and unique strategies will probably start to play a bigger role. hell, we could even start seeing something like void ray midgames to force your opponent to spend gas on archons/storm instead of mass disruptor. who knows? but even if disruptor micro remains a core mechanic of the matchup, so what? zergs have to live through ling/bane wars, which is an early game version of the exact same thing, just with smaller economies and cheaper units. zerg also has to micro lings against hellions and reapers over and over. terran has to split against AOE and micro drops/reposition tanks and liberators. all races have to pull back armies to get bigger concaves and better fights. all of these things are just mechanical interactions that players do hundreds of times, and i don't see why any of them becomes "boring" out of repetition alone. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On December 01 2015 01:50 Kenny_mk wrote: It's hard staying polite with people like you.Long live to toss hater i guess,even if you may be right on this point you guys are just ruining SC2 experience sometimes. Tbh it is also hard to take people who ask for boosts to photon overcharge serious. Something like doubling the energy cost would be more reasonable imo (maybe + 1 range on it to compensate). Recently I also made the stupid mistake of killing the enemy MSc. So he made a new one and had automatically two new photon overcharges. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
| ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
What they should do with the Disruptor is make it move relatively slowly. That way, it can't keep up with a full speed Stalker ball, requiring either the Stalkers move at the speed of the Disruptors to protect them, or split the Stalkers off in order to go attack a base or another target of opportunity. This also opens up the possibility of using a Warp Prism to dramatically increase the mobility of a Disruptor, while also protecting it from enemy Disruptor shots. Combined with the ability to pick up a Disruptor from a distance, the Warp Prism+Disruptor combo is a bit like a Shuttle+Reaver, but has more micro potential. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
| ||
|
PepperMintTea
187 Posts
On December 01 2015 03:20 WrathSCII wrote: Since this thread is a review for all DH not just Disruptor PvP stalemate, anyone else was bothered that Mech was pretty non-existent in any match up? I'm never a fan of mech in SC2 but I am sure some people were probably upset by it. The problem is in TvT Medivac-Tank means that positioning is not important. in TvZ ravager is really good vs mech Finally I think the economy changes make mech a lot harder, mech worked by turtling on 3 base, this isn't possible and I imagine it is hard for a mech player to secure a 4th base on any map. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 01 2015 03:20 WrathSCII wrote: Since this thread is a review for all DH not just Disruptor PvP stalemate, anyone else was bothered that Mech was pretty non-existent in any match up? It's too slow, and with the accelerated game pace, mobility and speed is the name of the game. | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
| ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
On December 01 2015 03:58 PepperMintTea wrote: Finally I think the economy changes make mech a lot harder, mech worked by turtling on 3 base, this isn't possible and I imagine it is hard for a mech player to secure a 4th base on any map. Thats not what mech was about, some players did it but there was more to mech than just "turtling in 3 base" | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:21 Lexender wrote: Thats not what mech was about, some players did it but there was more to mech than just "turtling in 3 base" That´s what mech usually was at the pro level. | ||
|
PepperMintTea
187 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:21 Lexender wrote: Thats not what mech was about, some players did it but there was more to mech than just "turtling in 3 base" ok I never played TvT but the majority of the time when I faced mech in TvZ the mech Terran player would secure 3 bases and then turtle to a max army before moving out. occasionally harassing with helions There are other styles that were heavy hellion/hellbat, thor. banshee but I don't think that is what people would label as "mech" | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:35 PepperMintTea wrote: ok I never played TvT but the majority of the time when I faced mech in TvZ the mech Terran player would secure 3 bases and then turtle to a max army before moving out. occasionally harassing with helions There are other styles that were heavy hellion/hellbat, thor. banshee but I don't think that is what people would label as "mech" The problem is that there is a huge difference between what people think mech should be and what mech has actually been in SC2. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
This "mech" "not mech" business is getting to "Communism" "not actually Communism" levels bad. Can TL tech wizards give us a hand? We need like a popup window or something. "I see that you would like to discuss mech in SC2. Do you mean positional!mech or turtle!mech?" Some of us still want the promised land glimpsed by ForGG. | ||
|
Elentos
55465 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:00 Whitewing wrote: It's too slow, and with the accelerated game pace, mobility and speed is the name of the game. It's also too slow to build up. Not just that, it's expensive but the amount of money per base is reduced. Plus new and effective counter play to mech was added (ravager, parasitic bomb, tankivac), which means you will trade more. But you'll never keep up in reproducing. Not to mention in TvZ the threat of broodlord/viper without good ground to air just kills mech dead. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
| ||
|
bObA
France300 Posts
On November 29 2015 06:38 Silver777 wrote: I feel DH really showed a few things. 1. The maps used were clearly imbalanced and there should never be "free" gold bases, but everyone already knew this. 2. Coinciding with point 1, Zergs were playing EXTREMELY greedy all tournament long...for seemingly no reason as they seemingly had a much stronger early/mid/late game. Like if a zerg builds a roach warren and shows a few ravagers, protoss/terran must respect it and the attack potential. For the most part zergs played as greedy as possible and tried to get to some specific tech/insane economy as if they were on a timer, when their opponents had the timer. For me a clear example of the safer zerg play was the one non-finals Solar vs Parting(i think) game where solar opened with the ling drop into a few roaches into mutas. Basically harassing parting early then forcing units to be built and disruptor tech with roaches (thus slowing this tech/infrastructure), then finally switching to Mutas to counter the disruptor path and harass. 3. Most protoss/terran pretty much decided to all-in or cheese zerg all tournament long because of points 1 and 2. 4. Pretty much all P match-ups revolve around the disruptor after early game. Most terrans were used to splitting MM from banelings, but zergs had no clue how to split units well or position lurkers well. Once zerg fix that I am curious how useful disruptors will be. Also a lot of zergs were poor at tech switching against disruptors. When the protoss has 5+ disruptors...why are you continuing to make roaches and hydras for 5-10 mins? 5. Ravagers are really good, but spamming 10 corrosive biles all at the same time, let alone onto 1 spot is not. Nor is walking your roaches ONTO your own corrosive biles, which happened quite a lot. Once zergs get better at ravager usage...well if the unit wasn't good enough already. Very good analysis especially 4. and 5. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:49 Elentos wrote: It's also too slow to build up. Not just that, it's expensive but the amount of money per base is reduced. Plus new and effective counter play to mech was added (ravager, parasitic bomb, tankivac), which means you will trade more. But you'll never keep up in reproducing. Not to mention in TvZ the threat of broodlord/viper without good ground to air just kills mech dead. That isn't an inherent problem, if you can take efficient trades the resource and build speed isn't inherently problematic or limiting, it's the fact that it's too immobile and can't protect the expansions you are forced to take, and enemy forces are too fast. Base trading is a powerful tactic in sc2, and that shuts down immobile armies pretty hard. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:00 Whitewing wrote: It's too slow, and with the accelerated game pace, mobility and speed is the name of the game. Are you saying that 1) TvT won't ever see pure mech being viable again And 2) Tanks wouldn't even be viable in TvT now without Tankivacs? So far as I can tell, both have to be true in order for your analysis of mech's theoretical chances to be right. And I very much doubt both of those things. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On December 01 2015 04:42 RaFox17 wrote: The problem is that there is a huge difference between what people think mech should be and what mech has actually been in SC2. Mech was awesome in SC2. Only in TvZ there were problems and that was due to the Raven and SH. Outside of that, mech vs bio and mech vs mech made for some of the best games in SC2. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 01 2015 05:21 pure.Wasted wrote: Are you saying that 1) TvT won't ever see pure mech being viable again And 2) Tanks wouldn't even be viable in TvT now without Tankivacs? So far as I can tell, both have to be true in order for your analysis of mech's theoretical chances to be right. And I very much doubt both of those things. TvT will be the only match that might see pure mech, and only on maps which are designed for it to flourish well. Further, I generally think that even on maps which are good for tank play, bio/tank is better than pure mech. And tanks would not be very good now without medivac pick ups. So much else has gotten faster. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Ground warfare is inherently more interesting than seeing two giant air blobs collide. There's terrain. There's concaves and unit collisions. Air blobs literally do not care about anything except how many units there are, and everybody can always shoot. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:26 ledarsi wrote: The thing about TvT is it doesn't even matter how shit the tank is because the other guy has the same tanks you do. They need to buff the Siege Tank. And they really need to do something about the air blobs for all races. Ground warfare is inherently more interesting than seeing two giant air blobs collide. There's terrain. There's concaves and unit collisions. Air blobs literally do not care about anything except how many units there are, and everybody can always shoot. It's not that they need to buff the siege tank, they need to slow the game down in some areas. The tank is a unit that isn't designed for the game Starcraft has become. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
The Disruptor is a good example of how powerful zoning can be, however the Disruptor is actually quite a mobile unit, so it has this area of influence around itself that depends on how quickly it can get a shot there. The Siege Tank could be a very useful unit if it were as effective at zoning as the Disruptor is. The obvious disadvantage is that you can't quickly relocate it, run away, or chase. There is this hard line at the edge of its range that the enemy can sit just beyond with impunity. The Disruptor and the Siege Tank are even pretty close in unit cost and tech level. But the Disruptor's attack is actually powerful enough to get the enemy to back away. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:31 Whitewing wrote: It's not that they need to buff the siege tank, they need to slow the game down in some areas. The tank is a unit that isn't designed for the game Starcraft has become. To do that economy has to change. And David Kim made it clear that he prefers to die than changing it. | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:35 ledarsi wrote: I disagree. If the tank were effective at zoning the enemy while sieged, then you just need to protect it because it will be very vulnerable while it relocates. The Disruptor is a good example of how powerful zoning can be, however the Disruptor is actually quite a mobile unit, so it has this area of influence around itself that depends on how quickly it can get a shot there. The Siege Tank could be a very useful unit if it were as effective at zoning as the Disruptor is. The obvious disadvantage is that you can't quickly relocate it, run away, or chase. There is this hard line at the edge of its range that the enemy can sit just beyond with impunity. The Disruptor and the Siege Tank are even pretty close in unit cost and tech level. But the Disruptor's attack is actually powerful enough to get the enemy to back away. And that's the fundamental problem of the Disruptor. It has the qualities of a siege unit without the immobility that typically limits it from being too strong. Because of that, it dictates almost all decision-making in a standard fight. | ||
|
PepperMintTea
187 Posts
The more I think about it the more I dislike cooldown and I think Energy based spells give a more dynamic/decision making side to the game. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
I think cooldown is simpler, and more in keeping with the type of counter relationships the Disruptor should have. I think it makes more sense to add counterplay such as having Force Field block the shot than allowing High Templar to hard counter them with Feedback. I would very much like to see Disruptors have a quite slow move speed, meaning Stalkers may have to leave them behind to get somewhere in a hurry, and possibly making players pre-split their Disruptors, perhaps across the map or in a siege line, instead of keeping a big ball of Stalker+Disruptor. It also means there is a possible reason to put Disruptors in Warp Prisms to move them quickly. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:42 CosmicSpiral wrote: And that's the fundamental problem of the Disruptor. It has the qualities of a siege unit without the immobility that typically limits it from being too strong. Because of that, it dictates almost all decision-making in a standard fight. It has other problems that not all other siege units have: The projectile needs to be microed. Perfect opponent micro means it deals no damage at all. Its fucking expensive. The rate of fire is even lower than the rest. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 01 2015 07:27 Salteador Neo wrote: It has other problems that not all other siege units have: The projectile needs to be microed. Perfect opponent micro means it deals no damage at all. Its fucking expensive. The rate of fire is even lower than the rest. it's not expensive. 150/150 isn't expensive in sc2. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On December 01 2015 07:29 sAsImre wrote: it's not expensive. 150/150 isn't expensive in sc2. Only 25 more gas than a siege tank, and it can be chrono'd. I do think Siege Tanks need either a gas cost reduction to 75 or 100 (to make up for their reduced effectiveness) or their damage buffed to bring value to its cost. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
But if you just made the tank cost 100 gas, or even 75 gas, that is just not enough. Needs a supply cost reduction, or a damage increase. Possibly both. It's the least mobile unit in a very fast-paced game, and there are countless ways to play around it, or to outmaneuver it. | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
Although to me the game don't feel so much faster,i mean mines in a mineral line, a zergling run-by not stopped by a zealot warp/"supply move", a prism/toss army forcefielding your base from inside with your army outside were all things happening fast and considered big mistakes that could cost you the game no matter the littles advantages you took in the past . Sure more workers and less minerals somehow speed up the game but not in the same meaning for me. (and this is a sucess for me,making the game much more interessting) I think the tankivac is here to allow the tank to adapt to the pace of the game x) ! Only things that im surprised people don't complain about is that prism can handle 2 Disruptor. I think mb the disruptor should cost 6 places so u can take 1 + another unit but not 2. The tank is immobile in siege mode,but movespeed in normal mode is decent,and i feel like a slower disruptor will just be too much, they get sniped easily enough in fight once they shot, and the time required to pass through the map in case you need to push without prism will just be insane (oh yes reaver was slow,but the damage was almost always dealt,and he shot often,plus i'm not a big fan of this game anyways) However,this give me an idea of a version of the disruptor that could be even more close to the tank with a siege mode.Like good movespeed but only shoot in siege mode,everything would need a tweaking of course (before people start to crying and say im trying to buff my race and that Mcore should not exist and such B***) And tanks already are making players backwards, i mean if the player can a-move through a line of tanks and win,well he deserve to. Maybe in TvT Tanks are'nt doing this as great as before, but this is due to tankivas (since drops already exist before) and so the only solution to get a tank zoning so hard is deleting the tankivac, thing that is'nt a good idea to me. I have to see more of Tanks Marines mirror pro fight to really have an opinion if the zoning power of the tank is really that weak now. edit : wow so now this is going into "We need to buff the tank!" .. While i say in this in post as a P i found a lot more player using the tanks in LotV than in Hots... Don't know why he should get buffed now just on a theorycraft....... | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
On December 01 2015 07:29 sAsImre wrote: it's not expensive. 150/150 isn't expensive in sc2. Wasn't it something like 150/300 earlier in the beta ? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:42 CosmicSpiral wrote: And that's the fundamental problem of the Disruptor. It has the qualities of a siege unit without the immobility that typically limits it from being too strong. Because of that, it dictates almost all decision-making in a standard fight. The weakness is that you have to micro each individual shot yourself during its full duration. I think this mechanic creates pretty much all the problems with the unit tbh | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. A better way to state that is that you get to micro the shot so you can do the most damage possible. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:07 Whitewing wrote: TvT will be the only match that might see pure mech, and only on maps which are designed for it to flourish well. You say "only," but pure, positional mech being playable in TvT is not insignificant. It means that nothing fundamentally stops mech from being viable in a game like SC2. If it doesn't work in TvZ or TvP, then there is a problem related to the units and abilities of those MUs. Alter the units and abilities available in those MUs, and presto, positional mech is entirely a thing across the board. I know that you have separate concerns about the game being too fast, but 1) I'm not convinced they're not premature, and 2) as long as positional mech is even semi-viable in TvT, there are other things we can fix besides game speed in the problem matchups. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:00 pure.Wasted wrote: It means that nothing fundamentally stops mech from being viable in a game like SC2. If it doesn't work in TvZ or TvP, then there is a problem related to the units and abilities of those MUs. Alter the units and abilities available in those MUs, and presto, positional mech is entirely a thing across the board. I can tell you exactly what the critical difference is. In TvT the Siege Tank kills Terran units in relatively few shots. It takes way more shots to kill the units of either Protoss or Zerg. Marine has 45 HP (55 with combat shield). Tank does 35 (+15 Armored) damage. Therefore, Siege Tank kills marine in 2 shots. Zealot has 150 total HP. Tank does 35 (+15 Armored) damage. Therefore Siege Tank kills zealot in 5 shots. Not to mention Zealots can get Charge which means they spend relatively little time in the Siege Tank's firing solution before they close to range. Add to this the existence of quite severe hard counter units like Immortals, Tempests, and softer counters like Adept phasing inside minimum range and Blink Stalkers, as well as the possibility of hard air transitions which the Factory can build nothing to stop. In BW the Siege Tank had very high damage and a slow rate of fire, making it better suited against the high-HP Protoss units than against the very numerous, low-HP Zerg swarm. Except Lurkers, because they eat marines for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and tanks outrange lurkers. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote: Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do? Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Other siege units are simply put somewhere and do their job. ANY unit is simply put somewhere and does its job. The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works. I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works. I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote: The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote: Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote: Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote: Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
Not surprising,since all the toss hater are the same that also blame DK all the time cause he did'nt make sc2 like bw, he just said that to have you in your pocket ahahahah Also yes talk about the zealot like it's the core of the toss army, don't talk about those unit which you have to flash on each of it (Oh don't says i'm lol player it was DotA for me before i quitted this toxic game) Im gonna stop it here ,and never step again in this f* place full of toss hater full of theirself who can't ever have an argument on the mechanics of the game without wanting toss nerf and implying it's a noob race and thinking their A-move is much more skilled for them since they have to press T before or press 4 V and click on a hatch between,dear gosh! The worst is the discussion was PvP and TvT centered.. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Disruptors are much needed finesse, and have a huge potential for reward when used with skill. This is a big improvement over the Colossi bullshit. And what they should do is give the Colossus a different weapon that fills a role Protoss currently doesn't have. Like a big single target damage dealer with a long cooldown, or something. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Marines can a-move with the best of them when Terran is winning and theres no aoe. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common. SCV pulls in TvP turn Terran into an a-move race as well. Right now it doesn't matter at all what I personally think. You said the Disruptor doesn't fit SC2, my answer was that it perfectly fits if we assume that the designers think HotS Protoss was too easy to control. And they have said that they think that (unless you have a better interpretation of DKim's quote). So don't argue with me, argue with them. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12057 Posts
On December 01 2015 09:02 pure.Wasted wrote: Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common. You just told him that a-move is dependent on context, and then made the argument that protoss was the a-move race. Is it that special kind of context that disappears when you agree with the criticism? | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 09:09 Nebuchad wrote: You just told him that a-move is dependent on context, and then made the argument that protoss was the a-move race. Is it that special kind of context that disappears when you agree with the criticism? I'm not sure where you see a contradiction. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by context? In the context of a Colossus-heavy meta, Protoss takes less mechanical and multitasking skill to use well than other races do. Most of WoL and HotS were Colossus-heavy metas. In the context of a Disruptor-heavy meta, Protoss takes more mechanical and multitasking skill to use well (impossible to tell, yet, how it will compare to LotV T and Z). | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 10:43 alexanderzero wrote: I don't really understand why people dislike pylon overcharge in comparison to nexus overcharge. The nexus overcharge had a massive range and completely zoned out anything that wasn't already a large enough army to commit to a serious battle. Pylon overcharge may be able to output more damage in a short time, but it leaves opportunities to seriously punish an inattentive Protoss player, since they can't defend their whole base without units now. Does anyone actually suggest bringing back Nexus PO? All the Pylon PO complaints I've heard have said "keep it to Pylons, but make it harder to spam." | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
It doesn't really make that much difference whether it's nexus or pylon overcharge. It's a dumb ability on a dumb unit that is an unapologetic band-aid for Blizzard's boneheaded decision to make Gateway units weak, because warp-in would otherwise make BW strength Gateway units broken. Everything about Protoss; Colossi, Sentries, Mothership Core, and so on, all stems from the creation of Warp Gate fundamentally breaking the rules of SC2 production by paying after the cycle, and allowing warp-in anywhere, with a quicker build time than producing directly from a Gateway. Basically, whether it's nexus or pylon is small potatoes. They're both dumb and broken. Ideally Blizzard would rethink the very existence of the Mothership Core, perhaps adding upgrades that buff the basic stats of Gateway units, so they can get stronger in the mid/late game without needing all these stupid band-aids. A normal, build-as-many-as-you-want, Arbiter-ish unit with a photon cannon type weapon could serve a similar role to the pylon overcharge with just its standard weapon, even if it was initially produced with only one, or perhaps no abilities available. It could have strong abilities like Recall and Time Warp that must be researched in various different buildings. As you get research at various tech buildings, this unit would become more powerful. A high tech passive Cloaking Field upgrade would make it scale pretty hard into the lategame. This would be so, so much better than the limit-1 bullshit Mothership Core and Mothership. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
Everything about Protoss; Colossi, Sentries, Mothership Core, and so on, all stems from the creation of Warp Gate fundamentally breaking the rules of SC2 production by paying after the cycle, and allowing warp-in anywhere, with a quicker build time than producing directly from a Gateway. These complaints read like something out of HotS. Collosi and Sentries have taken a back seat in Legacy, so much that they're barely used and they are nowhere near as game breaking (if you really wanna call it that) as before. Offensive warp-in was also massively nerfed but there's no acknowledgement of that from you... Basically, whether it's nexus or pylon is small potatoes. I don't think so. As a Terran player who depends on drops to deal damage I think it's much more fun to play against the pylon cannon, and there have been games when the pylon placement was too good for me to do damage. However you can at least take up some position near a protoss base now which was even nearly impossible before. | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
On December 01 2015 01:50 Kenny_mk wrote: It's hard staying polite with people like you.Long live to toss hater i guess,even if you may be right on this point you guys are just ruining SC2 experience sometimes. Don't worry this is the least of my problem in LotV,mb lost 2 games on that, was just 2cts more for a casual approach OF COURSE You can imagine this photon could cost more energy.Anyways i don't really care about this, was up to hear other comments would just be nice if it was not in the form of Protoss whining, for the god who know reason people hate this race and think it's OP no matter what (let's see PvZ without this! lolololol) Something is strange because ppl don't like all or nothing of the disruptor,but for me the new overcharge is far less all or nothing than the previous one, on every aspect (You can cast it faster most of time in case Mcore is in danger of getting sniped, you have more choice on where the area is, and the list goes on, be it too strong or not) If you guys want to get back to WoL where T just had to get MM and go in the Toss&win like a tard before the 2nd base is up (, if the toss is'nt 2 league ) just says it. And for disruptor i don't like the idea of it shooting less.. Aside from the balance perspective, i think for the part of the game where the P only have 1-2 Disruptor, it make the game even more all or nothing,since those shoots will be even more crucial. It would maybe make P more "economic" on those shots, and thus more defensive,but the result might be disruptor and stalker just staying in back since shooting is more risky,which is even more boring than protoss sending balls to each other. Energy though might be a way to give templar a role in the match-up, though the fact that feedback almost killing the disruptor feels a bit easy to me.(it's easy to click and the disruptor can't really fight back like in a ghost/templar fight,+ the fireball being desamorced once it's dead..) Also i don't know what to think about the ghost countering both templar and Disruptor. While it might not be that much a counter if energy regen fast.. well i can understand that protoss players want the old msc mechanic back, coz they´ve been totally save against ANY early harass from terran side with it. so i know alot of protoss players feel like uncomftorble right now coz they have to think about pylon/building placements etc. im not a protoss hater , i just think giving back the (early game) invurnability from hots back to lotv would just be broken... as for energy concerns i agree with you, the disruptor would be countered to ez by ghosts then. but tbh just remove emp and feedback and use energy more often to balance things out would be way better imo. just like zerg they dont have any type of emp/feedback units. | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On November 29 2015 05:49 NexT_SC2 wrote: I do agree that disruptors are not good design. The ball that does damage is invincible, super fast, and one shots many units. But I feel like game 4 solar vs parting, solar needs to split his lurkers so that disruptor shots don't hit more than two lurkers and he needs to not unburrow his lurkers so frequently. I feel like if he had done those things Parting would have died to that attack in game 4. wat? The Disruptor is one of the best designed units in SC2. It's purely skill-based, promotes micro from BOTH sides and is powerful and fun to use, without being game-breaking or frustrating to play against. Maybe, down the track they'll need a nerf, but atm I'm finding Protoss the hardest to win with against good opponents, despite my Toss builds being a lot smoother than my Terran builds or even my Zerg builds. I do probably get more free win moments as Toss though where my opponent just flat-out derps, maybe Toss is harder to scout now that they can be active and be out controlling the map (I'm not sure, I just roll Toss over with death armies as Terran or Zerg, which doesn't need much scouting past the early game). | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 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 !! i really like this idea, i think energy-dependant shots that result in nonlinear cooldown is a great mechanic that should be implemented on more units kinda like the non-linear cooldown of reavers in bw where building scarabs took longer than shooting them making their fire rate slower once they ran out | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
If you want to be able to double tap it could have charges instead of energy. But honestly, one shot seems reasonable, since if you want to fire twice just buy two. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 01 2015 09:46 pure.Wasted wrote: I'm not sure where you see a contradiction. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by context? In the context of a Colossus-heavy meta, Protoss takes less mechanical and multitasking skill to use well than other races do. Most of WoL and HotS were Colossus-heavy metas. In the context of a Disruptor-heavy meta, Protoss takes more mechanical and multitasking skill to use well (impossible to tell, yet, how it will compare to LotV T and Z). In the context of Colossus-heavy metas - that was the mech people here cry for. The army was super immobile, that army was super fragile when it was in bad spot. Yes, it was easier to use it, but I wouldn't say it was easier to control than other armies because your units were dumb(colossus dance), slow(templars, sentries) and very, really very depending on proper positioning. Yes, if your opponent went passive stance and you selected when things happen it was pure won for you. The same happens when you go passive against the old mech(HotS/WoL). Right now nobody cares about positioning, about planning and about predicting when you have this mobile composition. Right now it's all about "micro", free shots of kamikaze balls. I always thought that micro is about moving units not about using proper skills, than templars and sentries were the proper micro all the time, or...? Anyway, I still hate the disruptor for being hit or miss unit. The more disruptors you have the more it doesn't matter. But at the beginning of their production you have 2 or 3 shots and they really matter. That's just bad, the unit's scaling is bad. It's just bad unit... (and it's also a ballish unit. after oracle and msc they added another ball of doom) Edit> Also it would be worth mentioning I played many games as random. I honestly feel taht the easier race to master is Zerg. Not sure why DKim claims otherwise and it would be nice if he made public reasoning On December 01 2015 17:18 althaz wrote: wat? The Disruptor is one of the best designed units in SC2. It's purely skill-based, promotes micro from BOTH sides and is powerful and fun to use, without being game-breaking or frustrating to play against. Maybe, down the track they'll need a nerf, but atm I'm finding Protoss the hardest to win with against good opponents, despite my Toss builds being a lot smoother than my Terran builds or even my Zerg builds. I do probably get more free win moments as Toss though where my opponent just flat-out derps, maybe Toss is harder to scout now that they can be active and be out controlling the map (I'm not sure, I just roll Toss over with death armies as Terran or Zerg, which doesn't need much scouting past the early game). It is not fun to use. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 18:16 ledarsi wrote: My worry about an energy based Disruptor is that it will bring back the Colossus because the Colossus can't be countered by EMP. If you want to be able to double tap it could have charges instead of energy. But honestly, one shot seems reasonable, since if you want to fire twice just buy two. So change the Colossus... it isn't any more interesting than it was in HotS, it's only tolerated because it barely exists. There's no good reason for Protoss to have 3 ground based AOE units anyway, two of them requiring basically the exact same tech. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
On December 01 2015 18:46 deacon.frost wrote: In the context of Colossus-heavy metas - that was the mech people here cry for. The army was super immobile, that army was super fragile when it was in bad spot. Yes, it was easier to use it, but I wouldn't say it was easier to control than other armies because your units were dumb(colossus dance), slow(templars, sentries) and very, really very depending on proper positioning. Are you fucking kidding? You try attack-moving with siege tanks and see how far that gets you. For that matter, Colossi are not immobile. I don't know where people got the idea that they are. Blizzard originally thought the Colossus would be a fast, cliff-striding RAIDER. The damn thing moves at 3.15 (that's almost as fast as a stimmed marine- all the time) and can fire instantly at a rate of 1.18. Not to mention it ignores cliffs. The Colossus is not a positional unit. No siege, no burrow, no shuttle required, no nothing. It doesn't zone units away from itself; it just pewpews lazors with high damage. You are smoking something if you think the motherfucking COLOSSUS is positional "mech" play. Lurkers, even goddamn DISRUPTORS are more positional despite their speed. Shit, people who think the COLOSSUS is immobile are freaking spoiled. Not everything can be as fast as the freaking Stalker, for crying out loud. That thing is on chemicals. Positional play means you control space, and force the enemy to either avoid it, or engage with special care or tactics. Like a siege line in BW would prompt zealot bombs or picking them off with mutalisks rather than just attack-move an army directly into it. Disruptors do this; as DH PvP showed us, you don't aggressively blink on top of Disruptors unless you want to lose a lot of Stalkers. So you have to stay away, either pushing the enemy back across territory, and destroying a base that way since the enemy army is zoned away from their own expo, or skirting the edges, or straight up attacking an entirely different area. Colossi never did this ever, not one time. You make the counter unit and you attack move into it with an army. Vikings, Corruptors, what have you, and attack alongside your Marauders or whatever. Instead of having this positional dance for many minutes trading units and territory all over the map, you have a single, decisive clash of two deathballs that ends in seconds. | ||
|
b_unnies
3579 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On December 01 2015 07:29 sAsImre wrote: it's not expensive. 150/150 isn't expensive in sc2. I stand corrected. Didn't remember the cost was changed (a lot). | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
On December 01 2015 19:13 ledarsi wrote: Are you fucking kidding? You try attack-moving with siege tanks and see how far that gets you. For that matter, Colossi are not immobile. I don't know where people got the idea that they are. Blizzard originally thought the Colossus would be a fast, cliff-striding RAIDER. The damn thing moves at 3.15 (that's almost as fast as a stimmed marine- all the time) and can fire instantly at a rate of 1.18. Not to mention it ignores cliffs. The Colossus is not a positional unit. No siege, no burrow, no shuttle required, no nothing. It doesn't zone units away from itself; it just pewpews lazors with high damage. You are smoking something if you think the motherfucking COLOSSUS is positional "mech" play. Lurkers, even goddamn DISRUPTORS are more positional despite their speed. Shit, people who think the COLOSSUS is immobile are freaking spoiled. Not everything can be as fast as the freaking Stalker, for crying out loud. That thing is on chemicals. Positional play means you control space, and force the enemy to either avoid it, or engage with special care or tactics. Like a siege line in BW would prompt zealot bombs or picking them off with mutalisks rather than just attack-move an army directly into it. Disruptors do this; as DH PvP showed us, you don't aggressively blink on top of Disruptors unless you want to lose a lot of Stalkers. So you have to stay away, either pushing the enemy back across territory, and destroying a base that way since the enemy army is zoned away from their own expo, or skirting the edges, or straight up attacking an entirely different area. Colossi never did this ever, not one time. You make the counter unit and you attack move into it with an army. Vikings, Corruptors, what have you, and attack alongside your Marauders or whatever. Instead of having this positional dance for many minutes trading units and territory all over the map, you have a single, decisive clash of two deathballs that ends in seconds. http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Colossus i don't know what you are smoking, i would said i want some if i did'nt stopped some months ago edit : 1) While a collossus kitting marines without cliff would be very funny 2)as i said earlier, i agree that the collosus is a bad designed units,mostly because it can do a large amount of damage without any micro. That's why i think disruptor is pretty fine designed,and i don't want collosus back at all | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 01 2015 20:17 Kenny_mk wrote: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Colossus i don't know what you are smoking, i would said i want some if i did'nt stopped some months ago edit : 1) While a collossus kitting marines without cliff would be very funny 2)as i said earlier, i agree that the collosus is a bad designed units,mostly because it can do a large amount of damage without any micro. That's why i think disruptor is pretty fine designed,and i don't want collosus back at all The problem is that Protoss is designed around reliable splash damage and that's where disruptor fails in low numbers. And PvP is boring with it, but I guess that's just PvP beyond early game. IMO LASER wars were actually better because it wasn't all the same. Shooting balls until you have the proper hits over time. It's exciting for the first time, but then you are waiting for the money shot and I found that boring. Anyway, TIL that stimmed marine is as fast as colossus. I was doing the PvT all the time wrong when I couldn't escape with colossi from stimmed bio | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On December 01 2015 06:48 PepperMintTea wrote: I know snute brought this up but I would like a high level discussion about energy vs cooldown. Getting the perspective of the top minds in the scene. If this has already been done then I apologise and if someone is kind enough then provide a link. The more I think about it the more I dislike cooldown and I think Energy based spells give a more dynamic/decision making side to the game. There are some cases where energy runs into usability issues, such as with stalkers and adepts where it might cause certain units to arbitrarily not respond. In the case of the ravager and the disruptor, it's closer to the standard spell caster model of treating unit energy as a shared pool that represents a certain number of casts. i.e. it's target oriented rather than agent oriented and therefore energy might be appropriate in both cases. However, the two main differences between the disruptor and the ravager versus traditional casters is firstly, that they are supposed to reliably, frequently cast their projectiles and secondly, that the unit has no other ability to compete for energy, and therefore they blur the line between regular attack (which is cooldown limited for all units) and spell. A note here on the distinction between energy and cooldown and other models, which is that you can use multiple methods to achieve the same kind of model and properly speaking the only actual difference between energy and cooldown is the interaction with EMP and the like. You can use energy to function exactly like cooldown by setting maximum energy as the ability cost, and similarly you can make cooldown function like energy by adding stacks. By setting the maximum energy in between one and two times the ability cost you achieve something like the reaver in Brood War which can fire scarabs faster than it produces and therefore benefits from building up before the fight, although an exact duplication requires a cooldown in addition to energy afaik. Although to be fair, not all of those exist in the game and maybe Blizzard doesn't like using energy for non-caster mechanics. Also, I imagine that Blizzard is not particularly keen on adding energy to units. I'll paraphrase an earlier post I've written which speculates that energy is an archaic concept that will in due course be phased out and replaced by cooldowns, stacks, fast regeneration, combos and so on in modern games because energy suffers from a couple of principle problems: its use is strategic as well as tactical and so if unbounded by cooldowns it tends toward extremes of either casting everything or nothing and as such frequently punishes players for using their abilities and requires them to take into account some high level, unintuitive considerations. Secondly, it frequently creates scenarios where one can't cast anything because of the slow energy regeneration, which might be frustrating for players. In general energy creates overhead where a cooldown is simpler. Think of how over the last few years Blizzard has moved toward more accessibility and more rapid game pace, to the point that many units have stronger hit point regeneration too; think of how unlikely it would seem for Blizzard to rollback such changes, including ones such as increasing ghost starting energy. Personally I just don't think it's likely that Blizzard would arbitrarily switch to energy as opposed to cooldowns unless they had compelling reasons and maybe a more careful look at changes they made to the game in recent years would back this up. If one looks at a possible counter-example in the ghost: one might bring up snipe as a candidate for a cooldown-type ability, but since the ghost is a traditional caster and has competition from other spells such factors would not apply, and Blizzard might be loath to add unnecessary changes to the game. The disruptor however is a new unit and as such it offers them the opportunity to experiment with new forms and models. I think the lesson here is that in considering Snute's suggestion, one shouldn't blindly consider the specifics and it might be wise to choose a higher level of abstraction and neglect implementation issues such as whether to choose energy (which really is Blizzard's responsibility). I might also add that Snute's specific suggestion runs into the issue of having to add either custom energy regeneration or custom maximum energy for one particular unit, and would therefore already be non-standard and require justification. I don't know Blizzard's policy though, maybe they're okay with it being like that. Questions to discuss might be: 1. do disruptors fire too frequently in the normal cause of an engagement; and 2. would they benefit from being able to charge up before battles, possibly in conjunction with change #1. And of course you can find such discussion here already so it might be a moot point, although that was before the evidence from the recent DH. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
1) all 200energy max (1 exception: nexus), all same energy regeneration, all abilities use 25 energy steps 2) little interaction with energy pools. Terran cloak, EMP, feedback. That's it. 2a) No manaburn-type of damage. E.g. units could always deal 1/4th of their damage to energy too/instead?! 2b) No inherent profit/repercussion of storing energy, besides the spell usage (e.g. extra damage from full manapool; movement slowdown from full manapool) 2c) No energy trading between units. 3) Sometimes cooldowns are still present on top of energy to prevent the energyesque spamming of abilities to begin with. 4) Sometimes the energybase of an ability just feels like the generic solution for something that could have been implemented much cooler and doesn't necessarily feel Sci-Fi-esque. I think in the Starcraft enviroment the upside of strong cooldown abilities is that they are used frequently and constantly and easier to balance. With the downside of players often storing for them and not really having good ways to emphasize on the ability (disruptor PvP, Swarm Hosts, widow mines). On the flipside energy creates a lot of tension early, but is often hard to balance. Units become easily unuseable due to being so costinefficient initially (Ravens, HotS Infestors) while they easily become the most powerful and gamedominating elements once they gathered energy (WoL Infestors, pre-nerf Ghosts, Templar, Ravens). I think by far the most interesting implementation of energy is with the Viper, because it has the energy tension once it runs out of energy, but it is also quickly available through the consumption spell and therefore easier to balance since it will usually just have full or nearly full energy before bigger engagements. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 01 2015 19:32 Salteador Neo wrote: I stand corrected. Didn't remember the cost was changed (a lot). No problem we fucked up this during NW3 qualifiers... I was schocked when I realized how cheap it was | ||
|
JazVM
Germany1196 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
a side note re: the swarm host, some people used to say that the locusts should cost energy (maybe still with a CD) so that you could save them up a little bit and the sh would be less helpless in direct combat, while making the constant locust stream less powerful, but that's also something Blizzard didn't implement on another side note re: the disruptor, I kind of don't like that they're immune to their own shots. It feels like a leftover from the earlier design and leaving it in seems unnecessary and sloppy (it going through forcefields does too). I don't understand why Blizzard is not more up-to-date on such consistency issues, though to be fair I'm personally constantly annoyed by Blizzard's lack of interest in standardizing various data. | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
oops, he said "blizzard originally thought" But even if we were back to HoTs i disagree with a ms nerf since low ms are already the weakness of toss and a part of the cause of the mc (which i like,but u guys have to know what you want) i also disagree with laser wars being better,cause aside the fight itself, it was a meta where fight were very rare and that's bad to me. I personnaly don't find disruptor wars that boring,and personnaly at my level PvP games are now "1,5 bases" instead of mostly 1 base or 3 base macro into final fight, and i got great stats (top plat though) with playing 4-5phoenix THEN oracle for stasis-mine his army when he want to come with his stalkers,while doing some immo obs (low gate-unit count ofc), other case are phoenix war or straight robo then stargate pretty own it. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
oops, he said "blizzard originally thought" But even if we were back to HoTs i disagree with a ms nerf since low ms are already the weakness of toss and a part of the cause of the mc (which i like,but u guys have to know what you want) i also disagree with laser wars being better,cause aside the fight itself, it was a meta where fight were very rare and that's bad to me. I personnaly don't find disruptor wars that boring,and personnaly at my level PvP games are now "1,5 bases" instead of mostly 1 base or 3 base macro into final fight, and i got great stats (top plat though) with playing 4-5phoenix THEN oracle for stasis-mine his army when he want to come with his stalkers,while doing some immo obs (low gate-unit count ofc), other case are phoenix war or straight robo then stargate pretty own it. But that's your personal preference vs. mine. Once the tennis play of doomballs isn't that new and shiny it won't be that appealing and some players are already frustrated with that shit now. Without proper player base you may have viewers, but that's a short term solution. He said blizzard originally thought and then moved to colossus moves at almost the same speed as stimmed marine all the time which is bullshit. What Blizzard originally though is pointless discussion. Colossus is a slow unit compared to composition it is supposed to counter and the counter to colossus is actually overrun it(SCV pulls), lure Protoss into bad position(open space/cliffs for vikings) or don't fight the Protoss and attack at multiple places at the same time because protoss sucks at defending these. I am not defending colossi wars, but neither am I defending tennis wars. Both of it is shit from my perspective. Tennis wars because I play it and it's annoying and shit. If you start a game and your first thought is "PvP, better leave this game, PvZ, better leave this game" until you play against way worse players the game design is bad. But as long as I can leave games to play worse players I am fine. Edit> And if you fuck up quote marks at least fix them... | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On December 01 2015 22:55 Big J wrote: I think energy is a bit boring in SC2 which is why I am often cool with more cooldowns instead. Why? 1) all 200energy max (1 exception: nexus), all same energy regeneration, all abilities use 25 energy steps 2) little interaction with energy pools. Terran cloak, EMP, feedback. That's it. 2a) No manaburn-type of damage. E.g. units could always deal 1/4th of their damage to energy too/instead?! 2b) No inherent profit/repercussion of storing energy, besides the spell usage (e.g. extra damage from full manapool; movement slowdown from full manapool) 2c) No energy trading between units. 3) Sometimes cooldowns are still present on top of energy to prevent the energyesque spamming of abilities to begin with. 4) Sometimes the energybase of an ability just feels like the generic solution for something that could have been implemented much cooler and doesn't necessarily feel Sci-Fi-esque. To be fair, not all of those would work that well with the game. Units die very quickly, therefore any damage dealt which also affects energy is likely to be not incredibly significant yet if it is it could lead to snowballing. Similarly, any sort of ability which functions as an energy shield is likely to be very useful, since if you get hit the unit at least survives and you're not supposed to be hit anyhow, so there's not too much risk / tension. Getting extra damage with a full mana pool just encourages turtling and not casting any spells, so the tension there is probably not that interesting. For energy trading, there's the shield battery type designs which Blizzard has consistently rejected and the viper's ability is also not as powerful as consume for in-combat use, so maybe they're not a fan. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 01:45 Grumbels wrote: To be fair, not all of those would work that well with the game. Units die very quickly, therefore any damage dealt which also affects energy is likely to be not incredibly significant yet if it is it could lead to snowballing. Similarly, any sort of ability which functions as an energy shield is likely to be very useful, since if you get hit the unit at least survives and you're not supposed to be hit anyhow, so there's not too much risk / tension. Getting extra damage with a full mana pool just encourages turtling and not casting any spells, so the tension there is probably not that interesting. For energy trading, there's the shield battery type designs which Blizzard has consistently rejected and the viper's ability is also not as powerful as consume for in-combat use, so maybe they're not a fan. Yeah true, I was just kind of pointing out stuff that would inherently just add something more to energy besides: this unit has energy, use it for spells. Didn't really think it through for an SC2 context or try to design those things properly. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:00 pure.Wasted wrote: You say "only," but pure, positional mech being playable in TvT is not insignificant. It means that nothing fundamentally stops mech from being viable in a game like SC2. If it doesn't work in TvZ or TvP, then there is a problem related to the units and abilities of those MUs. Alter the units and abilities available in those MUs, and presto, positional mech is entirely a thing across the board. I know that you have separate concerns about the game being too fast, but 1) I'm not convinced they're not premature, and 2) as long as positional mech is even semi-viable in TvT, there are other things we can fix besides game speed in the problem matchups. It's only viable in TvT because the only tools Terran has to deal with tanks are countered by vikings. Even then, pure mech will still likely be very weak, and I wouldn't actually expect to see it. It's rate of construction and ability to defend multiple bases early on is very poor: a bio player can put on a ton of pressure early and really do some extreme damage without having to hold back on the expansions. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 02 2015 05:01 Whitewing wrote: It's only viable in TvT because the only tools Terran has to deal with tanks are countered by vikings. Even then, pure mech will still likely be very weak, and I wouldn't actually expect to see it. It's rate of construction and ability to defend multiple bases early on is very poor: a bio player can put on a ton of pressure early and really do some extreme damage without having to hold back on the expansions. So that's all to say Terran has no hard counters to the Siege Tank that aren't effectively dealt with by other units. So what's the hold up on A) removing the other races' hard counters to the Siege Tank and/or B) making those hard counters very effectively dealt with by other units? Apart from the fact that Blizzard doesn't give a shit, I mean. edit: to reiterate my point from so many posts ago, I see absolutely nothing in SC2 that fundamentally prevents positional mech, based on Tanks, from being cool and viable in every single MU, except the designers' unwillingness to make it so. The fact that it already existed in TvT for years proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote: So that's all to say Terran has no hard counters to the Siege Tank that aren't effectively dealt with by other units. So what's the hold up on A) removing the other races' hard counters to the Siege Tank and/or B) making those hard counters very effectively dealt with by other units? Apart from the fact that Blizzard doesn't give a shit, I mean. edit: to reiterate my point from so many posts ago, I see absolutely nothing in SC2 that fundamentally prevents positional mech, based on Tanks, from being cool and viable in every single MU, except the designers' unwillingness to make it so. The fact that it already existed in TvT for years proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. I believe the main problem with buffing the tank is not that you would overpower mech or something, but you - at least - risk overpowering marine/tank. Because basically B) applies to most of what you say with marines and the other races. Stuff that counters tanks is usually countered by marines (and medivacs). But marines counter so many more things than tanks that your core unit defaults to marines anyways and the tank becomes a sidekick or just a support unit that competes with other support units in the marine-composition. Which it naturally has a bad time with the way Terran production and upgrading works, at least if there is an alternative on the barracks (marauder vs armored, ghost for splash and range vs toss) or if it is somehow not as restricted (reactored widow mines + need no upgrades, reactored liberators + upgrades aren't as necessary). I guess you could make the tank a better support for marines in any case, but just making it a very strong core unit when the marine is so hard to counter and the marine and tank complement each other that well by concept is probably very hard, all things considered (balance, TvT design, hardcounters, general design questions like anti-turtling). | ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
On December 01 2015 22:55 Big J wrote: I think energy is a bit boring in SC2 which is why I am often cool with more cooldowns instead. Why? 1) all 200energy max (1 exception: nexus), all same energy regeneration, all abilities use 25 energy steps 2) little interaction with energy pools. Terran cloak, EMP, feedback. That's it. 2a) No manaburn-type of damage. E.g. units could always deal 1/4th of their damage to energy too/instead?! 2b) No inherent profit/repercussion of storing energy, besides the spell usage (e.g. extra damage from full manapool; movement slowdown from full manapool) 2c) No energy trading between units. 3) Sometimes cooldowns are still present on top of energy to prevent the energyesque spamming of abilities to begin with. 4) Sometimes the energybase of an ability just feels like the generic solution for something that could have been implemented much cooler and doesn't necessarily feel Sci-Fi-esque. I think in the Starcraft enviroment the upside of strong cooldown abilities is that they are used frequently and constantly and easier to balance. With the downside of players often storing for them and not really having good ways to emphasize on the ability (disruptor PvP, Swarm Hosts, widow mines). On the flipside energy creates a lot of tension early, but is often hard to balance. Units become easily unuseable due to being so costinefficient initially (Ravens, HotS Infestors) while they easily become the most powerful and gamedominating elements once they gathered energy (WoL Infestors, pre-nerf Ghosts, Templar, Ravens). I think by far the most interesting implementation of energy is with the Viper, because it has the energy tension once it runs out of energy, but it is also quickly available through the consumption spell and therefore easier to balance since it will usually just have full or nearly full energy before bigger engagements. In regards to this whole energy conversation, if the Dev's wanted to, they could make energy more 'attractive' like cooldown. I think the actual problem, based on the conversation I saw on this page, is being fixtated with the current energy numbers. For example, what if this situation they boost the energy regen rate to like 1~2 energy per second, and lowered the maximum energy to 100, at the same time, setting up energy cost to be multples of 20 instead of 25. And this is done to every unit in the game. Now, in this situation, we get a situation in which you can't store as much energy to performed multple abilities at once, avoiding a lot of the issues you, Big J, brought you while gainning all the advantages that you guys like about cooldown. And, unlike cooldowns, the game already has a visual indicator on the map for energy unlike cooldown. As Grumbels said, energy and cooldown are just both gating tools for abilities. If anything, energy has more 'potential' if the dev's really wanted to expand or change it, but they don't. They kept to what it was from SC1, which I think is why someone may say it feels like an archaic concept. Cooldown is actually very limitied in what you can do, unless you start adding other things to it, like charges for example, but even then, energy can already do that. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 08:09 Clear World wrote: In regards to this whole energy conversation, if the Dev's wanted to, they could make energy more 'attractive' like cooldown. I think the actual problem, based on the conversation I saw on this page, is being fixtated with the current energy numbers. For example, what if this situation they boost the energy regen rate to like 1~2 energy per second, and lowered the maximum energy to 100, at the same time, setting up energy cost to be multples of 20 instead of 25. And this is done to every unit in the game. Now, in this situation, we get a situation in which you can't store as much energy to performed multple abilities at once, avoiding a lot of the issues you, Big J, brought you while gainning all the advantages that you guys like about cooldown. And, unlike cooldowns, the game already has a visual indicator on the map for energy unlike cooldown. As Grumbels said, energy and cooldown are just both gating tools for abilities. If anything, energy has more 'potential' if the dev's really wanted to expand or change it, but they don't. They kept to what it was from SC1, which I think is why someone may say it feels like an archaic concept. Cooldown is actually very limitied in what you can do, unless you start adding other things to it, like charges for example, but even then, energy can already do that. Yeah, but that is a lot of work to balance properly and blizzard doesn't want to put a lot of work into anything that is not a new shiny unit. Lots of strategies and energy units depend heavily on the burst of a large energy pool acquired over time and not balanced out by 25-->20 steps of energy. E.g. sentries with a max of 2.5 FFs are much weaker, queens with only 2.5heals are much weaker in the lategame, the Viper specifically wouldn't benefit as much from the extra regeneration to begin with due being able to regenerate much faster anyways, but would be heavily hit by the nerf to max energy. In other examples - Terran cloak on banshee and ghost, Terran medivac, Mothershipcore Photon Overcharge - the extra energy regeneration would be a tremendous buff. All of that would require blizzard to actually think about stuff that they could also mark as "that's just how the game is" and go home tuesday noon (Austrian reference if anyone gets it :D ). | ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
On December 02 2015 08:29 Big J wrote: Yeah, but that is a lot of work to balance properly and blizzard doesn't want to put a lot of work into anything that is not a new shiny unit. Lots of strategies and energy units depend heavily on the burst of a large energy pool acquired over time and not balanced out by 25-->20 steps of energy. E.g. sentries with a max of 2.5 FFs are much weaker, queens with only 2.5heals are much weaker in the lategame, the Viper specifically wouldn't benefit as much from the extra regeneration to begin with due being able to regenerate much faster anyways, but would be heavily hit by the nerf to max energy. In other examples - Terran cloak on banshee and ghost, Terran medivac, Mothershipcore Photon Overcharge - the extra energy regeneration would be a tremendous buff. All of that would require blizzard to actually think about stuff that they could also mark as "that's just how the game is" and go home tuesday noon (Austrian reference if anyone gets it :D ). Ignoring balance concerns and who benefits from what (that really shouldn't even be important when dicussion about something this board), I concure, blizzard aren't willing to do any of that. It's their unwillingness to tweak the energy system that makes it a poor state now since the game, from SC1 to LoTV, has changed it's pacing. Which in my point is, "saying that energy is a poor design is wrong, because it's not energy is a poor design. It's how the dev poorly designed energy that makes it poor." | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 08:45 Clear World wrote: Ignoring balance concerns and who benefits from what (that really shouldn't even be important when dicussion about something this board), I concure, blizzard aren't willing to do any of that. It's their unwillingness to tweak the energy system that makes it a poor state now since the game, from SC1 to LoTV, has changed it's pacing. Which in my point is, "saying that energy is a poor design is wrong, because it's not energy is a poor design. It's how the dev poorly designed energy that makes it poor." Yeah, I also didn't critizise energy in general, neither do I believe Grumbels wants to say that. My point is that it hasn't been fit into SC2 properly as you say. I wouldn't even go so far to say that it is poorly designed or plays out poorly in SC2, but I think it speaks volumes if suggestions like Snute's disruptor suggestion immediately overstep boundries of the SC2 energy design (in this case the unorthodoxly high regeneration rate) to make the idea actually interesting. It just works in some cases and in others not so well. | ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
On December 02 2015 08:56 Big J wrote: Yeah, I also didn't critizise energy in general, neither do I believe Grumbels wants to say that. My point is that it hasn't been fit into SC2 properly as you say. I wouldn't even go so far to say that it is poorly designed or plays out poorly in SC2, but I think it speaks volumes if suggestions like Snute's disruptor suggestion immediately overstep boundries of the SC2 energy design (in this case the unorthodoxly high regeneration rate) to make the idea actually interesting. It just works in some cases and in others not so well. If you stated that on a different page, I didn't see that and I apologize. But on the last page, all your statement are just aimmed at energy in general. But really, there is no boundries. It's not like the dev declared that energy MUST be like this. Everything is just assumption by the community. The dev's could do whatever they want if they wanted to. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 01 2015 21:42 deacon.frost wrote: The problem is that Protoss is designed around reliable splash damage and that's where disruptor fails in low numbers. And PvP is boring with it, but I guess that's just PvP beyond early game. IMO LASER wars were actually better because it wasn't all the same. Shooting balls until you have the proper hits over time. It's exciting for the first time, but then you are waiting for the money shot and I found that boring. Anyway, TIL that stimmed marine is as fast as colossus. I was doing the PvT all the time wrong when I couldn't escape with colossi from stimmed bio The sad and funny thing is you don't realize how absurdly entitled you're being to suggest such a thing. No. Protoss is not "designed" around reliable AOE. It just had it. For free. For no reason. For five years. Which just happens to be one of the reasons many people hated the shit out of Protoss. What are the other races designed around, pray tell? Are Terrans designed around having reliable bio drops? Can't be that, because an opponent can have perfect drop defense and you lose all your Medivacs/do zero damage to their ramping economy, and then you just roll over and die as a Terran. You know what that's called? Getting outplayed. Are Zerg designed around having reliable Baneling damage against bio? No again, all it takes is some great splitting and some A-moved Banes into WM fields and suddenly you have no Banes and they still have all their Marines. You know what that means? Outplayed again. Are you sensing a pattern here? There's no "reliable" anything. You have to work for EVERYTHING in SC2. If a Protoss didn't land money Disruptor hits, that means he got outplayed. He doesn't deserve to stay in the game just because he's such a peerless strategic genius that he knew Disruptors were the right unit to build. That this shit worked with Colossi for five years is a very unfunny joke. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24460 Posts
Quite enjoying this thread, a lot more interesting ideas and discussion than often results in balance discussion threads. I'm still not sold on Legacy one way or the other yet, part of me does enjoy some of the unit interactions, but part of me feels the game just seems a bit too fast and volatile at times. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 02 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote: So that's all to say Terran has no hard counters to the Siege Tank that aren't effectively dealt with by other units. So what's the hold up on A) removing the other races' hard counters to the Siege Tank and/or B) making those hard counters very effectively dealt with by other units? Apart from the fact that Blizzard doesn't give a shit, I mean. edit: to reiterate my point from so many posts ago, I see absolutely nothing in SC2 that fundamentally prevents positional mech, based on Tanks, from being cool and viable in every single MU, except the designers' unwillingness to make it so. The fact that it already existed in TvT for years proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. The problem is that the game is too fast now. Mech production rates and ability to defend multiple locations early on in the game makes it quite a bit weaker than bio. It has a lot less to do with hard counters per say. The developers have always had the power to make mech strong. They don't want it strong because whenever mech is strong, everyone is complaining and whining about it. The reason why? Because there's no advantage to mining from more than 3 bases, so out-expanding the mech player is pointless, so you can't play an economic game vs. a mech player when it is strong. Thus, mech has to be weak and crushed early in order for economy to matter. Economy is the central core mechanic of starcraft, it needs to always matter. If you wanted mech to be viable, you needed to push for a double harvesting economic model. Without the ability to throw wave after wave of units and trade inefficiently as a strategy by mining from 5 or more bases, the only way to play against mech is to out-maneuver it or hard counter it with correct unit compositions. As long as those two are viable and the economy solution isn't, mech cannot be made strong or the game will become hilariously boring. Mech will remain non-viable because the economic system does not support it. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On December 02 2015 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote: Quite enjoying this thread, a lot more interesting ideas and discussion than often results in balance discussion threads. Re-read my OP I didn't ask what people thought about balance. We've been getting a lot of discussion that has been interesting but I wish we'd have more conversation about gameplay and unit interactions that aren't Disruptor Wars. | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
Blizzard fucked up real bad, the double harvest model was superior to this current model. SC2 is still the most fun RTS to play, so I'll keep enjoying it. I won't expect it to live up to its potential with the current development team at the helm. They got so much right in LoTV, but so much still was missed. At least they're good at balancing, if not designing. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 02 2015 16:38 ProMeTheus112 wrote: what is the double harvest ? read this expression many times still not sure? probes getting double minerals and mine twice as long? That was the basic idea. The notion was to de-couple worker pairing. It wasn't quite double, but that was the short hand for the initial idea. In essence, one worker goes, mines, then goes back. The next worker gets there while the first is mining, has to wait until the first leaves, then mines. The numbers are tweaked so that 16 workers have the same income rate as the current system does. This means that 8 workers on one mineral line work much faster than 8 do on live. Thus, with the same 48 workers on minerals that is typical now, you still gain additional income from going up to 6 bases instead of 3, whereas the current system only supports 3 bases at a time being mined from. Blizzard opted not to use it because up until 4 bases, the economy was basically the same as it was in HOTS... which was the entire point. The purpose was to create late game economic options and support mass expansions as a response to a turtling opponent, and then throw wave after wave of units at them. Blizzard wanted an economy that was faster right off the bat, which I personally believe was the exact wrong direction to be going in, and which is why mech, at least siege tank based mech, cannot be viable and have the game be healthy. They could have kept the 12 worker start with DH economy and had a functional economic system with a faster start, but they specifically said they wanted rapid expansions to be forced. Thus, here we are. Differing design views. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
personally with the fast start, I also think it would have been smarter to go with like 8 workers start instead of 12 because if you give 8, it would give the choice to players to do anything like pylon 8.. which scales much better with the cost of things early on, it's more meaningful at this point to choose to spend 150 on a gate or 200 on a cyber or 400 on a nexus or 75 on a gas and commit probes to it etc. Essentially 12 start means you "have to get 12 workers before you build anything else" and gives less choice in early strats. When I see things like blind FE+gates+tech I'm like mehhhh.. I could be wrong though since I don't actually play. There seems to be still an amount of build diversity but less meaning. More poker-like? i'm still thinking we could make this game great in a mod.. even keeping a lot of the units or base ideas that differ from bw in an interesting way | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
eg: snutes suggestion for disruptors would work like this: give disruptors 15 max energy and make one shot cost 10 energy | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
Swisslink
2950 Posts
Right now I'm kinda uncertain if I like it. Of course the game were great and refreshing after a rather boring period of time in HotS. But some things worry me. Especially the fact that the big fights might last even shorter than thes did before. Distuptors as well as Lurkers just wreck an entire army in seconds. Probably even faster than a Protoss Deathball in HotS. One good Disruptor hit and the game just ends right there. I don't like that. Also the fact that Mutalisks lost its place in most situations because there are just too many units to counter them nowadays. In my opinion Mutalisks have always bern one of the most interesting units in the game and I hope they'll find their way back into the game. But some things definitely turned to the better as well. HotS was all about Deathballs - that's most likely gone. No more Turtle-Styles, because it just does not seen viable anymore. And that's a huge improvement, imo. I guess we'll just have to see how the game turns out to be, once the players know what they're doing. DH was mainly an experimenting and "throwing everything at the opponent and check if it works". One thing that confused me was the comparison with real sports and that real sports aren't changed the sams way SC2 is. Of course they are? It might not be the game that changes, but the way the game has to be played due to changes in the surrounding environment, may it be material or new rules. Both happen quite frequently and these changes affect the sports an insane amount. New material brings new possibilities which are most likely gonna be abused. Either these changes are accepted (-> The sport changed), or it's denied (-> Rules change), but the sport changes either way. Ski Jumping changed due to new materials, which allowed for new techniques. Initially the technique everyone uses nowadays was critizised, nowadays everything else is not accepted anymore. It's just blatantly wrong to say that normal sports don't change due to the environment the sports is in. And I'd assume that's not too bad of a comparison: Athlets in these sports got to change the way the sport is executed due to the surrounding environment and can't really do anything about it, because someone else makes the rules and comes up with new material which innovates the sport. Same as a StarCraft player has to adapt to patches which change the way their sport is played. Even closer to the situation in eSports are sports that are highly dependant on the technology - which is the case for StarCraft as well. Formula 1 for example radically changes the rules every few years, explicitly to avoid a stale environment in the sport. Many other sports with a technological, rather than purely manpower related background deal with similar situations. And quite frequently the rules are explicitly changed in order for the sport to get more exciting for the viewers. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
On December 02 2015 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote: Protoss without storm and Collosus would have been pretty garbage in the previous two iterations. It's less of an issue now that the game's pacing is different and adepts give more heft to gateway armies to the extent that you can get away without consistent splash for quite long periods. Quite enjoying this thread, a lot more interesting ideas and discussion than often results in balance discussion threads. I'm still not sold on Legacy one way or the other yet, part of me does enjoy some of the unit interactions, but part of me feels the game just seems a bit too fast and volatile at times. I was thinking the same,but you have to take in account the word "reliable" I think he talk only about collosus which is the only truely "reliable" aoe,i mean both storm and disruptor shot can be avoided,(not talking about the fact that storm can be hard-countered)unless you have to truely go in,in which case it's similar to going into lurker/tanks.or that you got outplayed (better shots who are'nt anticipated) Now Collosus is nerfed and is a bit less reliable due to the range nerf making him more vulnerable But i admit i don't really like the range nerf.. edit: but i agree that without a strong collosus and gateball getting owned by bio-ball and roach hydra,only rely only on storm would had make P pretty weak | ||
|
kaluro
Netherlands760 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 21:08 Salteador Neo wrote: Thing with PvP is that while people might hate Disruptor tennis, if they remove the +shields bonus damage the matchup would most likely become pure blink stalkers wars, which is even more 1dimensional. immortals? | ||
|
FireCake
151 Posts
On December 02 2015 12:50 jalstar wrote: Post-DH? I have a hard time believing that TY and Bomber are worse than the numerous foreign Protoss and Zerg who took Bo3s off them. Bomber is not very good on LotV right now. Please have a look at the replay pack of Dreamhack, Bomber rely on the old push/strategies that worked in WoL/HoTs, it can work but not playing the new units doesn't seems optimal for a terran. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
I think energy is a bit boring in SC2 which is why I am often cool with more cooldowns instead. Why? Generally speaking I prefer cooldowns of 20-50 seconds for abilities, regardless of whether its energybased or not, and I also dislike when you can cast more than one ability during a short period. You can create this type of effect with maximum energy of 100 and energy regeneration of 1.5 for most spellcasters. Blizzard has for some reason opted for 0.56 and 200 maximum energy for all spellcasters which is one of the reasons why spellcasters feel so boring in Sc2. The only real difference (after you make the above adjustment) is that energy can create opportunity cost between using differnet types of abilites. Hence I prefer energy when you have more than one ability and if you only have one ability, cooldowns should be the default. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2015 23:09 Hider wrote: Generally speaking I prefer cooldowns of 20-50 seconds for abilities, regardless of whether its energybased or not, and I also dislike when you can cast more than one ability during a short period. You can create this type of effect with maximum energy of 100 and energy regeneration of 1.5 for most spellcasters. Blizzard has for some reason opted for 0.56 and 200 maximum energy for all spellcasters which is one of the reasons why spellcasters feel so boring in Sc2. The only real difference (after you make the above adjustment) is that energy can create opportunity cost between using differnet types of abilites. Hence I prefer energy when you have more than one ability and if you only have one ability, cooldowns should be the default. I think 20-50 second cooldowns with high impact abilities can lead to "boring strategies", in the sense that you will try to get the free damage of those abiliities to trade and otherwise stay defensive. e.g. Swarm Hosts and Disruptors. This depends on the effect obviously, but in general if there is only cooldown there is less tension around using it just for the sake of something like zoning. Maybe it's also just that the cooldowns of the particular examples are on the lower end of 20-50 seconds that creates this dynamic though. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On December 02 2015 23:09 Hider wrote: Generally speaking I prefer cooldowns of 20-50 seconds for abilities, regardless of whether its energybased or not, and I also dislike when you can cast more than one ability during a short period. You can create this type of effect with maximum energy of 100 and energy regeneration of 1.5 for most spellcasters. Blizzard has for some reason opted for 0.56 and 200 maximum energy for all spellcasters which is one of the reasons why spellcasters feel so boring in Sc2. The only real difference (after you make the above adjustment) is that energy can create opportunity cost between using differnet types of abilites. Hence I prefer energy when you have more than one ability and if you only have one ability, cooldowns should be the default. I kind of agree with you on this, I think it tends to make the start of some fights a bit messy if there is no cooldown on abilities, but it is nice to have energy that you have to store for being able to use a spell even more than once every few seconds. You can store energy by not using the ability when you know it would be more useful later, or for being able to use it more than once in a battle, or for being able to use another ability that takes a lot of energy later. I think there is a bit more strategy involved thx to energy but cooldown helps not make it messy where you tend to want to spam the abilities of all your casters asap when some battles start and these become too important. 20-50 seconds is really huge though, depending on what the ability is something like several seconds seems nice already to give an interesting tempo. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On December 02 2015 18:45 Swisslink wrote: (...) One thing that confused me was the comparison with real sports and that real sports aren't changed the sams way SC2 is. Of course they are? It might not be the game that changes, but the way the game has to be played due to changes in the surrounding environment, may it be material or new rules. Both happen quite frequently and these changes affect the sports an insane amount. New material brings new possibilities which are most likely gonna be abused. Either these changes are accepted (-> The sport changed), or it's denied (-> Rules change), but the sport changes either way. Ski Jumping changed due to new materials, which allowed for new techniques. Initially the technique everyone uses nowadays was critizised, nowadays everything else is not accepted anymore. It's just blatantly wrong to say that normal sports don't change due to the environment the sports is in. And I'd assume that's not too bad of a comparison: Athlets in these sports got to change the way the sport is executed due to the surrounding environment and can't really do anything about it, because someone else makes the rules and comes up with new material which innovates the sport. Same as a StarCraft player has to adapt to patches which change the way their sport is played. Even closer to the situation in eSports are sports that are highly dependant on the technology - which is the case for StarCraft as well. Formula 1 for example radically changes the rules every few years, explicitly to avoid a stale environment in the sport. Many other sports with a technological, rather than purely manpower related background deal with similar situations. And quite frequently the rules are explicitly changed in order for the sport to get more exciting for the viewers. thanks for putting my argument into better words, i couldnt state it that eloquently, but thats exactly what i meant | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
Though honestly, I don't think it would make that much difference since you are always supposed to pace your use of abilities in order not to exhaust your energy reserves, and to use them with caution for specific tactical purposes. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On December 03 2015 04:34 Grumbels wrote: So you would you say that some caster units (say, the sentry, infestor, high templar) could be improved by adding a ~5-10 seconds cooldown to their main ability on top of the energy requirements? It would still leave the strategic implications of energy intact while preventing the spamming of abilities at the start of fights. For instance, if you have five sentries you can only cast five forcefields at a time while waiting for the cooldown period to pass. Though honestly, I don't think it would make that much difference since you are always supposed to pace your use of abilities in order not to exhaust your energy reserves, and to use them with caution for specific tactical purposes. yeah, maybe not so much difference though yeah | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
I think 20-50 second cooldowns with high impact abilities can lead to "boring strategies", in the sense that you will try to get the free damage of those abiliities to trade and otherwise stay defensive. e.g. Swarm Hosts and Disruptors Really depends on how the abilities are designed and how the countertools are designed. E.g. in PvP the countertool to Disruptors is the Tempests which efficiently stale the game as it doesn't have any counter itself. With a better gamedynamic the opponent should have 1-2 tools to engage the Disruptor/Tempest army. Alot of the LOTV-game design issues atm revolves around the poor ground to air balance/design. Stalkers are generally too weak in low numbers and Psi storm/Archons doesn't contribute enough. If one of the former units could deal with Tempests (and those units also had other weakness's) it could create a much more dynamic gameplay where players would constantly adjust their compositions throughout the game. With regards to the HOTS-Swarm Host, it's efficient range is gigantic and while the Disruptor can also be used to engage the opponent (like break Siege Tanks and Lurkers - which is very good design btw), the HOTS-SH could do neither. It could just turtle. Anyway, the above is a range issue, not a CD issue. You can just look at Ravagers and Reapers with their 10 second skillshots. Neither really leads to stalemales. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
On December 02 2015 23:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I kind of agree with you on this, I think it tends to make the start of some fights a bit messy if there is no cooldown on abilities, but it is nice to have energy that you have to store for being able to use a spell even more than once every few seconds. You can store energy by not using the ability when you know it would be more useful later, or for being able to use it more than once in a battle, or for being able to use another ability that takes a lot of energy later. I think there is a bit more strategy involved thx to energy but cooldown helps not make it messy where you tend to want to spam the abilities of all your casters asap when some battles start and these become too important. 20-50 seconds is really huge though, depending on what the ability is something like several seconds seems nice already to give an interesting tempo. My problem with multiple abilities per spellcaster within a very short period is that it takes the game away from movement-based micro. I think abilities should only be a tool to reward players for move their units around and/or create some type of new dynamic. But when you start to have abilities like Forcefiel, WOL-fungal or PDD that you can store up and then spam without any movement-based counter play, it makes the plaing experience worse. Because rather than you casting one ability and then moving your units around, you prioritize casting abilities for the first part of the engagement which is a less interesting form of micro. So in general my philsophy is to make abilities/spellcasters the least taxing on APM as possible while balancing them being quite impactful with proper counterplay. And I think one ability (per spellcaster) every 40th second (or so) functions better than 2-3 abilities being cast within 2 seconds every 120 second. Note that if you want to balance abilites around counterplay (thus no guaranteed impact - like a skillshot) it also "feels" better with higher energy regeneration rate since your not putting all of your eggs into landing one ability as you have time for a second ability relatively quickly afterwards. Like imagine if Disruptors had a 60-second CD. Suddenly the game would be a ton more volatile since protoss players would take a much bigger hit if they missed the initial ball. So you would you say that some caster units (say, the sentry, infestor, high templar) could be improved by adding a ~5-10 seconds cooldown to their main ability on top of the energy requirements? It would still leave the strategic implications of energy intact while preventing the spamming of abilities at the start of fights. For instance, if you have five sentries you can only cast five forcefields at a time while waiting for the cooldown period to pass. What I said was that you can create the same effect with lower maximum energy and higher energy regeneration without adding any CD. A little OT, but one ability that noone seems to be talking about, but probably should is Consume. What is its purpose (relative to higher reg rate) besides adding mechanics for the sake of mechanic? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On December 02 2015 21:45 FireCake wrote: Bomber is not very good on LotV right now. Please have a look at the replay pack of Dreamhack, Bomber rely on the old push/strategies that worked in WoL/HoTs, it can work but not playing the new units doesn't seems optimal for a terran. I mean, Bomber is probably not the player you'd expect to adapt most quickly to LotV. Hell, he never really adapted to HotS. That said, if we're talking about his series against you, I don't think his problem was not making new units. He even made a lot of reapers one game, which isn't technically a new unit but the only reason you'd make that many is because of the grenade. I'd say pretty obviously his problem was, he didn't know how to defend a nydus worm attack. Is liberator the answer to that? I'm pretty sure it's not cyclone, and I was kind of under the impression tanks were the way to go to defend that attack. Obviously you know more about the strategy than me, though. Do you feel liberators are really the best way to defend a nydus worm attack? | ||
| ||
